Patent troll claims it invented the Windows 8 and Windows Phone “tiles”

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/patent-troll-claims-it-invented-the-windows-8-and-windows-phone-tiles/

by shawndumas • 14 years ago

48 68 14 years ago

arstechnica.com

loumf• 14 years ago

Never shipped a product, only started describing its tech as "tiles" in 2011.

The word "tile" is used prominently in the patent.

adrianonantua• 14 years ago

I think we all agree that software patents just gotta go (specially the ones regarding UI). The real question is how to make that happen. Perhaps having a big player like Microsoft targeted by a troll will help.

mrich• 14 years ago

They have been targeted many times, and paid quite some millions (billions?) over the years [1] [2]. The thing is, the big players like Microsoft all have large patent portfolios and are using them to keep up the oligopoly, they have no interest in abolishing the system.

[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/10/company-that-won-...

[2] http://www.inquisitr.com/112717/microsoft-loses-i4i-patent-l...

acluistic• 14 years ago

I thought this was an article from The Onion.

meaty• 14 years ago

There was a piece of DOS software in the late 80's called HyperPad which had tiles and used them to display status and launch applications. I can't find a single screenshot of it though unfortunately.

I'm sure that is probably slightly "more prior" art.

jotux• 14 years ago

http://www.atarimagazines.com/compute/issue115/406-1.jpg

swang• 14 years ago

Gee, waiting until Windows 8 releases before filing a lawsuit rather than before hand when the damage to your "company" could have been avoided. I wonder why that is...

Seriously though, even disregarding any previous prior art, Microsoft already did stuff like this back in 98 when it was called Active Channel.

tsycho• 14 years ago

I am glad that a patent troll has directly attacked one of the software giants. Now hopefully Microsoft with its deep pockets and legal team can crush this troll.

anonymfus• 14 years ago

Microsoft lose in such cases surprisingly often. Smart Tags in Office, onclick activation of plugins in IE...

Dirlewanger• 14 years ago

Yup. Fuck, they lost their right to use "Metro" to describe their now "Modern-UI style." MASSIVE fuck up in my opinion. Microsoft should have raided the coffers to protect using that term.

thwarted• 14 years ago

And wasn't click activation of plugins the change they had to make to avoid the Eolas patent on automatic execution of embedded content (going back to the 90s here)?

neurotech12• 14 years ago

The Smart Tags lawsuit had some merit to it. They adopted the idea only after it was shown to them, and they refused to license it.

The Eolas case was BS though. The patent was based on rewording the description of existing technology. If memory serves me correctly. Microsofts own OCX technology was prior art for the concept. Eolas claimed that by applying their concept to the web, it was novel and non-obvious.

machrider• 14 years ago

It doesn't actually do much good to "crush" this company, right? They started this company around one set of patents. They can start other companies for other patents. The act of incorporating shields them from losing much in the case of having to cover legal costs for the defendant.

indiecore• 14 years ago

They will probably just pay them off, it's simpler.

imglorp• 14 years ago

It's doubly in Microsoft's interest to settle. First, the troll goes away without a more expensive a jury trial to invalidate the patent.

But more importantly, the troll will take that intact patent and its now overflowing coffers and go off after Microsoft's competitors. So it's a twofer.

Bet on it.

rbanffy5• 14 years ago

Theyll just license it for an undisclosed amount and empower the troll to go after someone else.

jakejake• 14 years ago

Is it possible to sue a patent troll for time and legal fees if you win the original case?

I know they are basically shell corporations, but it would be great to see these patent cases incurring some risk for the trolls.

debacle3• 14 years ago

What is the risk to a company whose only asset is the patent which, should they fail to win their case, is probably useless anyway?

rayiner2• 14 years ago

Welcome to the problem of limited liability corporations in general. You think it's irksome to win a judgment against a shell that has no assets in the patent troll context, imagine it in the environmental damage, shareholder fraud, etc, context.

jlgreco5• 14 years ago

Could it be possible to pierce the corporate veil in these cases and go after the people actually running them? Seems like the correct response, if these people are using corporations as throw-away legal weapons.

at-fates-hands2• 14 years ago

Absolutely.

http://www.flhlaw.com/pubs/xprPubDetail.aspx?xpST=PubDetail&...

"Under Section 285 of the Patent statute, courts have discretion to award reasonable attorneys’ fees in patent infringement cases that are deemed “exceptional.” 35 U.S.C. § 285. The Federal Circuit noted that while the threat of enhanced damages for willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284 deters bad faith conduct on the part of the accused infringer, the threat of attorneys’ fees under Section 285 is “the only deterrent to the equally improper bringing of clearly unwarranted suits on invalid or unenforceable patents.” Mathis v. Spears, 857 F.2d 749, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Section 285 provides:

    The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorneys’
    fees to the prevailing party.  35 U.S.C. § 285."

scromar• 14 years ago

Additional fee shifting information from a recent federal circuit ruling here:

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/10/should-we-move-towar...

TopTrix• 14 years ago

I have now realized that anything can happen in the world of ...

xo• 14 years ago

Stop the madness

at-fates-hands2• 14 years ago

I know there has been a spat of these recently, but I always think about Robert Kearns and his lifelong battle against Ford for his intermittent windshield wiper patent.

As much as we hate patent trolls, once and a while, there is an exception to rule which proves us all wrong.

nitrogen4• 14 years ago

Is an intermittent windshield wiper really worthy of a 20-year monopoly?

bduerst6• 14 years ago

Depends on how much you have invested in it.

makomk• 14 years ago

Ford thought it worthwhile enough to steal the design from him when he came to show it to them and fight him in court for years for the right to use it without paying, so it might well be "worthy of a 20-year monopoly".

thirdtruck3• 14 years ago

But the question of "does the small guy ever benefit from patents" tells us nothing useful. Only the proportion of cost to benefit matters here.

People sometimes win the lottery. Does that provide reason enough to start buying tickets instead of groceries?

lemiffe• 14 years ago

I am REALLY pissed off. Idiotic patent trolls. GAH

SethMurphy2• 14 years ago

For those interested in the actual patent here is a link: http://www.surfcast.com/images/pdfs/US6724403.pdf

I particularly find the following quote interesting from the last line on the first page: "The present invention is intended to operate in a platform independent manner."

illuminate• 14 years ago

In that they are interested in suing as many platform developers as possible?

SethMurphy2• 14 years ago

No, in that a claim can be so specific and so vague at the same time.

kstrauser5• 14 years ago

It sounds like SurfCast owns some pretty valuable intellectual property. Good for them!

Of course, I wonder if they've been paying taxes on that property. If not, then Maine Revenue Services might be interested in the fact that a local corporation has been evading their taxes.

On the other hand, if SurfCast is willing to attest to the Maine Revenue Service that their property has no value and should not be taxed, then I'd like to see Microsoft introduce that into court as evidence that SurfCast can't have suffered financial harm.

So which is it: is SurfCast filing a baseless lawsuit over valueless property or are they tax evaders?

politician• 14 years ago

Are you suggesting that IP owners owe (real estate) property taxes?

jlgreco5• 14 years ago

That would have some interesting consequences. Could I suddenly owe lots of taxes if I get a really great business idea that I think is worth a lot?

kstrauser5• 14 years ago

Yes. It's essentially the same as real estate property in that the petitioner asks the government to state that a given more-or-less well defined area is granted to their exclusive use. In those circumstances, why wouldn't it be subject to taxes by the same government that is giving them the privilege of that sole use?

I'm not asserting that IP owners currently owe property taxes. I am asserting that if they've asked the government to declare that the property is theirs, and they're asking the government to help defend their granted rights, then they should have to pay for the operation of that government.

In short, if you want to have it both ways and receive the patent without paying taxes, fine. Just don't expect to use my taxpayer-supported court system to help you enforce your rights on it.

slapshot2• 14 years ago

An interesting idea, but which Maine tax would apply? I'm not a Maine tax lawyer, but it looks like Maine has plenty of taxes, including a "Blueberry Tax" [1][2], but there doesn't appear to be a general assets tax. Any corporate income from licensing the patent would be taxed just the same as any other income.

Maine's property tax appears to apply only to "real property" (land) and "tangible" personal property [3] ("tangible" property includes tractors, factory equipment, and other things you can pick up and hold --- patents and other IP are "intangible personal property.")

If you think it's a capital asset subject to capital gains taxation, there's usually no tax on that until the gain is realized by sale. I don't know how patents are taxed in states with general ad valorem taxes, but Maine doesn't seem to be one of those states.

[1] http://www.maine.gov/revenue/othertaxes/homepage.html [2] http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/36/title36ch0... [3] http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/36/title36sec...

kstrauser5• 14 years ago

I would be willing to bet that cash-strapped legislatures might be interested in the idea. In fact, I plan to test idea by suggesting it to as many legislators as will listen.

mdonahoe2• 14 years ago

Amusingly, they use screenshots from Windows Explorer in their patent drawings.

See Fig. 1 in the first patent (pg 3) http://www.surfcast.com/images/pdfs/US6724403.pdf

The pictures has some funny Drive names: Bambam, Fatbelly, Bigboss, Hulk.

bitwize• 14 years ago

Prior art: Windows 1.0.

Microsoft even once gave a demo of how fast QuickBASIC compiled code was by writing a program that split the screen into quarters and showed different real-time data displays into each quarter. You could call that prior art, even if it weren't for Windows 1.

Patent troll claims it invented the Windows 8 and Windows Phone “tiles”

Related Stories