Patent troll Lodsys sues 10 mobile game makers, despite Apple’s intervention

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/patent-troll-lodsys-sues-10-mobile-game-makers-despite-apples-intervention/

by fpp • 13 years ago

114 34 13 years ago

arstechnica.com

fnayr2• 13 years ago

Oh boy. Glad to dodge them so far. Hoping to continue.

fnayr2• 13 years ago

Lodsys now downvote trolling.

gav• 13 years ago

Patent 7,620,565 is a good example of everything that's wrong with the patent system; it's vague and generic, nothing novel, and seemingly far reaching.

They are using claim 15 to sue over interactive chat: "A method, comprising: monitoring a product for an occurrence in the product of a trigger event of a predefined plurality of trigger events; incrementing a counter corresponding to the trigger event upon detection of the occurrence of the trigger event in the product; displaying a user interface, configured to probe for information regarding a use of the product, if the counter exceeds a threshold; storing an input received from the user interface on a device; and transmitting the input to a server. "

melling• 13 years ago

I think there are tens of thousands of examples like this, with thousands more being added every year.

Now everyone wants to know how to solve the problem. If every developer needs to get a patent lawyer, it's going to be a big problem.

bdavisx• 13 years ago

Not for the patent lawyers.

Wingman4l72• 13 years ago

"[...] incrementing a counter corresponding to the trigger event upon detection of the occurrence of the trigger event in the product [...]"? Sounds like a website hit counter from the '90s.

sageikosa• 13 years ago

Sounds like a trip odometer or a turnstile.

shmerl4• 13 years ago

Can't a prior art be found for this?

Tuna-Fish• 13 years ago

Yes. However, invalidating patents via prior art takes long, and is quite expensive. Which is precisely why Lodsys is targeting the people they are -- if they tried to go after any of the big guys, they'd lose their patents. The small guys can't fight back.

kunai• 13 years ago

Just like Wikipedia has notability guidelines, there's no reason patents should not.

Problem is, the legislation to cover vague and broad patents may very well end up being vague and broad itself, unfortunately.

podperson• 13 years ago

Yes and there are no ridiculous articles in Wikipedia.

fpp2• 13 years ago

In former times (when patents mostly covered only machinery) you had to present a working prototype or product that demonstrated your invention.

My suggested solution to the current software patent disaster:

Inventors have to demonstrate a solution (in source code and running) that covers "ALL" the claims. Earlier inventions, e.g. those from the last 17 years, that have not provided this by means of ending up in a product during this period are automatically revoked / declared invalid. Inventors can appeal against this (at cost increasing the older the patent is). Demonstrations within appeals are only possible with technology available at the date of filing.

This will automatically revoke all the fantasy patents (I call them Jules Verne Patents), bring sense back into patent filing - particularly when "pure front-end" patents are disqualified, and will help to protect us from the 1999/2000 patent litigation tsunami some are already expecting.

(Reg: 1999/2000 patent litigation tsunami - this could be caused by all those start-up companies that filed patents within the 1999/2000 bubble and then went belly-up - many of those patents might soon end up in patent troll litigation portfolios.)

Update: And patents should only be enforceable by practising entities vs. PAEs along the lines / to mitigate the issues that Google, Blackberry, Red Hat and Earthlink have outlined in their letter to the DOJ last Friday ( https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwxyRPFduTN2VTE4TXlNcW9MR2s/... )

solarexplorer2• 13 years ago

This won't help against overly generic patents. And those cause most damage...

coldcode• 13 years ago

It's about time that someone prendalyzes these folks. Surely there is something about them that can be counter-trolled until these vanish.

PAULHANNA842• 13 years ago

Patenting inevitable software functionality is just soo odd to me. It's awful that companies like Soverain software who obtained shopping cart patents were able to go after companies such as Amazon and settle because the cost of battling simply wasn't worth it. To say one cannot have an online shopping cart is as crazy as saying "You can't have a cash register in your brick and mortar store."

shmerl4• 13 years ago

Be glad they didn't claim they own a patent on wheels.

PAULHANNA842• 13 years ago

lol, what's funny is as I was commenting I thought the same thing "An APPARATUS that contains no more than 18 wheels and no less than 2." and at the gas pump we would see fuel tax and a patent tax! lol

Quote frankly I'm getting sick of the work apparatus!

TallboyOne• 13 years ago

Theres a new post about patent trolls every other day. This makes me so fucking mad, can't they do anything about this??

Couldn't they pass some kind of legislation that says you can't have a shit shell company thats 40 companies deep or.. anything...

beedogs• 13 years ago

Would the world really lose anything of value if a daisy-cutter were to be dropped right above Lodsys headquarters?

nickolai• 13 years ago

a daisy-cutter. they're 30k a pop.

reader50002• 13 years ago

Here's a basic solution to this general problem:

To succeed on a patent infringement claim, the plaintiff must prove a causal link between his patent and the defendant's technology. That is, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant either (1) reverse engineered technology covered by the patent or (2) directly relied on the patent itself in creating the infringing technology.

In other words, independent invention should be protected. If I get a vague patent that could arguably be construed as covering in-app purchasing, and ten years later you, in no way directly or indirectly relying on my patent, implement an in-app purchasing system, I should not be able to recover any money from you, since I in no way assisted your technology. I just happened to have gotten lucky in that I secured a patent with vague language that could be construed to cover a basic piece of tech that 10 years later became popular.

Wingman4l72• 13 years ago

"[...] I secured a patent with vague language that could be construed to cover a basic piece of tech that 10 years later became popular."

The simpler version of this is "make/do something with the tech your patent is for within X years, or you lose it."

neya• 13 years ago

Asses who run companies like Lodsys who survive upon the blood of hard working developers sucking them like a leech should be humiliated in public and sent to prison for the rest of their lives. I really feel sorry for these developers..First, they owe the government their blood (taxes) and now these bastards. God saveth this country!

thomholwerda• 13 years ago

The cold and harsh truth nobody is willing to put out there: if Apple and Microsoft may abuse vague software patents, why shouldn't Lodsys?

Monkey see, monkey do. You are either against software patents, or you're not. You can't cherry-pick the companies you like and excuse them for abusing software patents. Lodsys is nothing but an exponent of a broken system large companies themselves created and are now sustaining.

raganwald• 13 years ago

I think you're making an interesting argument about bias amongst us, but the support you give is unpersuasive.

It comes down to a difference between a non-performing entity and a business. Apple and Microsoft employ people to attempt to develop novel solutions to real problems for the purposes of creating products. Trolls do not.

Now, this does not excuse Apple or Microsoft for BS patents. And that's a good discussion to have. But it isn't "monkey see, monkey do."

ScottBurson• 13 years ago

I think the non-performing entity argument is a red herring. As long as patents exist at all, patent rights will be salable.

Rather, I think the problem is that the vast majority of these patents fail to cross the obviousness bar and should never have been granted at all. I mean, seriously, a patent on sending a fax by email, when lots of things are already being sent by email? Give me a fucking break!

I think the fundamental problem is this. A patent is a deal we, the people of the US, make with an inventor: add significantly to the sum total of our technical knowledge, and in exchange, we'll give you a time-limited monopoly on the technique you invented. The problem is that there isn't anyone unambiguously charged with making sure this is a good deal for us: that the knowledge we're getting is worth the price we're paying. It's technically the PTO's responsibility, and they do make some effort, but the incentives given patent examiners don't encourage them to be hard-nosed about it.

reader50002• 13 years ago

Apple and Microsoft do not try to extort petty cash from small developers (at least not by way of patents, amirite?). Outside of that, I don't think HN has ever been congratulatory of their patent shenanigans either (perhaps except when they have to eat their own BS).

talmand2• 13 years ago

So, it's not the behavior but the target?

Patent troll Lodsys sues 10 mobile game makers, despite Apple’s intervention

Related Stories