28 More Companies Sued Over Grouped Toolbars Patent
from the patent-hawk-greed dept
You may recall last summer that we wrote about Gary Odom (as known as Patent Hawk) who has been known to stop by our site here to throw around an insult or two (nice guy!). It seems that Odom, who had previously worked with Microsoft, doing prior art research for its patents, had decided to turn around and sue Microsoft for having software toolbars that take different toolbar items and group the items together (stunning innovation, there). It later turned out that he may have violated his contracts in suing Microsoft.
That case is still ongoing, but why stop with just suing one company? Especially when that company is big and has lots of lawyers. Why not sue 28 other companies over the same patent. Amusingly, when Joe Mullin from IP Law & Business called Odom to comment, Odom refused, saying: “You’re a hack job, man.” Always a pleasant guy, that Odom. However, Odom had no problem discussing at length the lawsuit on his own blog — amusingly referring to himself in the third person, and (this is great) offering his own “expert” opinion on the validity of his own patents and lawsuit. Very credible.
While it seems quite likely that the patent in question (Tool group manipulations) is invalid following the Bilski decision, Odom brushes aside those concerns saying anyone suggesting that “[doesn’t] know what they are talking about” and then offers his own interpretation of the Bilski ruling, which doesn’t seem to mesh with what the ruling actually said, or how the courts and the USPTO have been interpreting the ruling. Still, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s right, and that the patent is still valid. So what does he want?
Well, from his post, it appears he wants these companies to shut up and hand over 25% of their profits, based on a rule of thumb from half a century ago. Think about this back here in reality for a second. He’s asking for 25% of all profits on nearly 30 different software products, because those software products happen to have toolbar menus where the buttons are in editable groups. This is an obvious minor feature on a minor feature of a minor feature. And he thinks it’s fair and equitable to get 25% of all profits. Update: In the comments, Odom clarifies, saying that he does’t want 25% of the profits (though, his original post is woefully unclear on this subject), ut 25% of the value of the feature. Considering the additional value to these products of having groupable toolbars seems minimal, I’m guessing about $5 towards Odom should about cover it. Odom, in the way only he can, also leaves another insult for us. Nice guy!
People like to point out these days that pretty much any high tech product in some way or another violates tens to hundreds of patents, thanks to the happy rapidity with which the USPTO approves any old obvious idea. Imagine if each one got to demand 25% of all profits as a license? It doesn’t take a math major to recognize how the assertion makes no sense.
Filed Under: gary odom, patents, software, toolbar
Companies: microsoft
Comments on “28 More Companies Sued Over Grouped Toolbars Patent”
Obviously this guy is right. He had zero to do with the patents, produced nothing of importance to society, and is a lawyer.
Give him all the money he wants.
That Guy
Odom sounds like a really big idiot. I hope he loses every lawsuit he starts.
And, just for a little bit of icing to that cake I hope he is ordered to pay legal fees too.
But really, I wish the losses like that upon everybody who sues regarding patents that cover software stuff.
Keep the patents out of the field. They are stupid and we don’t want them.
Gary Owed-em?
Gary Odom is a moron. I think he is a galactically stupid, self-absorbed fool that does nothing but try to steal that which others have done. He is totally gone in self-wallowing small man syndrome. He is nothing and he can’t take it. He is no one and that lack of any kind of importance whatsoever cankers his soul.
I find his pain amusing. His suffering fills me with glee.
Please report on anything bad that happens to him, as it makes my day. I hope he gets boils on both millimeters of his penis.
Re: Gary Owed-em?
How can you say that? I mean, Angry Dude hangs out at his blog and supports what he has to say.
I mean…Angry Dude, dude!
That link regarding Goldscheidner refers to a patent held by Goldscheidner which was licensed out to resellers of the equipment.
To be in a position to claim 25% of the profits for MS Office, surely he would have to claim that the product couldn’t possibly have existed if it wasn’t for his toolbar?
Re: Re:
that might actually be a valid argument for word 07…
Mike's character summaries
Preface: I’m only newly a “geek”, in that I have just over a year in the IT industry, and most of it is only on the security side, hence I sadly don’t know how to hyperlink w/i comments. So, in the former post Mike links to:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080820/0148172039.shtml
Comment #51 is an incredibly interesting (at least to a amatuer psychologist like me) rundown of character summaries on some of TD’s most notorious commentors. I’m fairly new here, and probably amongst the least technical oriented commentors (which is why I love this site, since it tackles tech/business/legal without getting too technical), but I would love to see a similar breakdown on Mike’s summaries for the current “class” of commentors.
Sorry for the off topic aside, I just wondered if anyone else would find that interesting.
Re: Mike's character summaries
You psychoanalyzing our comments? o_O
Dont get me wrong. Its brilliant. But somehow also disturbing.
Re: Re: Mike's character summaries
I assume you’re saying that it’s strange for me to psychoanalyze others’ comments. I couldn’t agree more. I know I’m a strange, conspiracy theorist type. I wouldn’t presume to be on the Maz’s summary list, but it’d be interesting to see my breakdown 🙂
Re: Mike's character summaries
See underneath each comment is a “link to this comment” link?
Right-click >> Copy that link, paste it wherever you want. That is the link to a specific comment.
Re: Re: Mike's character summaries
Nice, thanks.
Re: Re: Mike's character summaries
BTW: According to the character summary, Mike is unaware of any patents that Angry Dude has, though AD claims to have one/some/many.
According to a comment by “Angry Dude” in the ego-maniacal blog posting of Patent Hawk (“Panning the Patent Stream”…nuggets of gold indeed), Mr. Angry patents silicon internals.
I seriously don’t understand why anyone who embeds logic inside of closed hardware like a silicon chip would decide to go the patent route rather than the trade secret route. Reverse engineering the algorithms in a chip is Way More Difficult (though not impossible) than reverse engineering a software system.
Reverse engineering software, especially “UI widgets”, is something just about any computer programmer can do. Reverse engineering hardware requires some very advanced electronics skills that few individuals on this planet have.
The only reason to patent such an “invention” is to block others from doing…..OOOOOOoooooohhhhhhhh. I get it now, never mind.
Re: Re: Re: Mike's character summaries
LOL, final line payoff totally worth the investment.
Re: Re: Re: Mike's character summaries
Ever heard about fabless semiconductor companies, punky ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabless_semiconductor_company
Read it over lunch, you, mindless and patentless techdirt lemming-punk creature
Re: Re: Re:2 Mike's character summaries
So what is this “fabless business model”? The (unsubstantiated) article goes on and on about the importance of this “model” without actually specifying what it is…exactly like the way pro-patent people talk on and on about how important patents are without actually explaining why…
Mr. Angry, are you writing article for Wikipedia too?
Re: Re: Re:3 Mike's character summaries
It’s explained in the article, sure. They design the semiconductors, then contract out the actual construction of the designs. So, basically, they’re saying that ‘outsourcing’ is a ‘new’ model. Kidos to AD for making something simple actually seem complex. You know, AD, it doesn’t take all that much intellect to make things up like that.
Re: Re: Re:4 Mike's character summaries
“Outsourcing” is not a business model, at least not in terms of what is discussed here on TechDirt.
Where is the description of the economic strategy?
Re: Re: Re:2 Mike's character summaries
“This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references (ideally, using inline citations). Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008)”
Go, go now, angry dude!
Hands off Patent Hawk !!!
You, punks !!!
Re: Hands off Patent Hawk !!!
Why, does the Patent Hawk fall apart if critique is shined on him?
Movie accounting
Time for the companies to use some movie accounting so that the products show no profits. 25% of 0 is 0 after all. Alternately they can make the numbers show losses then send him a bill for 25% of those paper losses.
Re: Movie accounting
LOL…”your patented idea bankrupted my company!!!”.
We should be ashamed...
True love happens so seldom in the real world. What Mr. Dude and Mr. Hawk have is special, we should not deride it.
reasonable royalty
Let’s become clear here about Mike Masnick. Masnick wrote that I want “these companies to shut up and hand over 25% of their profits.” Completely wrong.
The Goldscheider rule, which is longstanding, and thoroughly debatable, is that the inventor is only entitled to 25% of the value of a patented feature, as a vendor infringer takes the risk of marketplace acceptance. In other words, if I accept the Goldscheider 25% rule at face value, for the purposes of settlement, I’m willing to grant the infringer 75% of the value of the invention, and take only 25% of the infringing features value.
The infringing feature’s value is not the profit of the product, or its revenue. In other words, I’m not asking for a 25% royalty. That would be grossly excessive. The value of active tool groups (the infringed feature) is a rather small fraction of the value of any software product. The royalty rate being asked for, for new product sales, is a rather small fraction of 1% (much less than one percent). And the royalty base upon which the settlement offer is based is of short duration, not the life of the patent.
The law states that a patent holder is entitled to “no less than a reasonable royalty.” What I’m asking for in settlement is considerably less than a reasonable royalty.
If Masnick’s above article was not willfully spiteful, then Masnick is downright stupid in his lack of comprehension ability. Either way, what Masnick is unwilling or unable to provide is decent reportage.
Re: reasonable royalty
Hi Gary,
Thanks for stopping by and explaining. I’m not sure why you insist on such insults:
If Masnick’s above article was not willfully spiteful, then Masnick is downright stupid in his lack of comprehension ability. Either way, what Masnick is unwilling or unable to provide is decent reportage.
I’m not a reporter and have never claimed as such. I have made it quite clear that I write my opinion based on the information out there as a part of a conversation, and I expect the comments to help lay out more interesting points — as you have, even while insulting me.
So I’ve updated the post with the additional info you’ve provided.
However, I’d argue that my original post was neither stupid nor due to a lack of comprehension, but due to your own weak explanation of what you wanted.
In the meantime, would you care to share why you deserve money for an idea so obvious that the companies in question all came up with it independently of your patent? Why should they have to pay you for their own innovation?
Re: Re: reasonable royalty
MM, you clearly have no idea of the legal meaning of “obvious.” The claimed invention must be obvious at the time of the invention, which is assumed to be the filing date of the patent application unless evidence is later submitted. If this was so obvious, please tell us how you would have known it was obvious at that date rather than looking backwards from now. You use “obvious” over and over without showing that you know what it means in this context. Just do us all a favor and stick to simple subjects suitable for an MBA.
Forrest Gump
PH: “stupid in his lack of comprehension ability”
Masnick: ” neither stupid nor due to a lack of comprehension, but due to your own weak explanation of what you wanted”
What I had written was in the original post: “I have a licensing program in place. I’m looking forward to talking with each of the parties, and being equitable in consideration of how extensively they use the claimed invention, and what constitutes a reasonable royalty, with all due respect to the long-standing Georgia-Pacific factors and the commonly applied Goldscheider 25% rule.”
Mike Masnick didn’t comprehend what was written. Mike just jumped to the wrong conclusion, in spite of what was written. As Forrest Gump (fictional movie character) said: “Stupid is as stupid does.”
Your denial is content free, and indicates another common stupidity: to deny in the face of facts, because of pride.
Why not just admit you were wrong, that you miscomprehended, rather than try to blame someone else? There was nothing wrong with my explanation. There were links to follow-on information. You have the markings of a little man, Mike Masnick.
Mike Masnick: “an idea so obvious”; “companies in question all came up with it independently of your patent?” Clearly, you have no concept of patents, of their value to the dynamics of invention. Or what “obvious” means in patent law. Maybe you simply don’t like the idea of patents, for who knows what reason, if any. Maybe you’re just a corporate toad in disguise. Whatever, such an opinion displays an ignorance of economics.
And patent law. Independent invention after patenting has nothing whatsoever to do with patent enforcement, nor should it. The problem with the patent system is that companies don’t adopt patented technology by reading public information on what is patented and taking licenses. Instead, they reinvent the wheel, and then, more often as not, try to evade the law.
No, I don’t suffer fools like you easily. You didn’t have to write about this in the first place. You chose to shove your head up your ass and type away. You insulted me first, by calling me greedy, when all I’m doing is following the law, with considerable sense of equity.
Re: Forrest Gump
You have the markings of a little man, Mike Masnick.
This is hilarious. If so then pot, meet kettle!
And seriously, why write such long responses if you are just repeating yourself in so many ways saying “you just don’t understand!” What’s next, a teary eyed video on YouTube with your make up running down your cheeks and you crying “Leave Patents Alone!”
Re: Re: Forrest Gump
LEAVE PATENT HAWK ALONE!!
Patent Hawk
Parasites V. Inventors
1)Mike Masnick says: “You may recall last summer that we wrote about Gary Odom (as known as Patent Hawk) who has been known to stop by our site here to throw around an insult or two (nice guy!).” Mike throws around insults whenever he comments about intellectual property. He advocates theft of inventors’ patent property rights. He is condescending to inventors. It is time that Mike carefully considers why virtually every inventor who visits TechDIRT responds to him as they do. Could it have anything to do with the way that Mike conducts himself?
2)Mike Masnick says: “It seems that Odom, who had previously worked with Microsoft, doing prior art research for its patents, had decided to turn around and sue Microsoft for having software toolbars that take different toolbar items and group the items together (stunning innovation, there). It later turned out that he may have violated his contracts in suing Microsoft.” Doing some work for Microsoft does not give Microsoft the right to take someone’s inventions. Taking inventions without paying compensation is a chronic problem at Microsoft and is one of the reasons that Microsoft is a member of the Piracy Coalition (aka. Coalition for Patent Fairness).
3)The only reason that high tech products are infringing so many patents is that the companies making those products have found that they can get away with grand larceny. It is not economical to enforce patent rights below $10 million dollars worth of infringement. And between ten and hundred million is iffy. It is only over a hundred million dollars that it becomes worthwhile with certainty. For every case patent thieves lose they get away with stealing ten to a hundred times more. Many tech companies, insurance and banking are cut from the same cloth.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.patentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
You have the markings of a little man, Mike Masnick.
I submit that there are many people on TechDIRT who suffer from the “Little Person Syndrome”. Some people are creators while others sit around and resent that they are not creators. What is ironic is that many people suffering from the Little Person Syndrome are probably capable of becoming creators and an asset to humanity but are simply too lazy to do so.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.patentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: You have the markings of a little man, Mike Masnick.
What is ironic is that many people suffering from the Little Person Syndrome are probably capable of becoming creators and an asset to humanity but are simply too lazy to do so.
Ronald J. Riley
And then the irony collapses unto itself as these same people keep on referring to themselves in third person. All along pretending to take the higher ground of not insulting other people.
Re: You have the markings of a little man, Mike Masnick.
Ronald,
Toolbars ? – Really ?
Re: You have the markings of a little man, Mike Masnick.
I submit that there are many people on TechDIRT who suffer from the “Little Person Syndrome”. Some people are creators while others sit around and resent that they are not creators. What is ironic is that many people suffering from the Little Person Syndrome are probably capable of becoming creators and an asset to humanity but are simply too lazy to do so.
Ronald J. Riley,
And I submit that there’s at least one person of the PIAUSA that is way too concerned about the selfish desires of inventors and not concerned enough about the good of the public.
Odom, Masnick and Obviousness
Inventors are no different then writers in that some are prolific and deep others confine themselves to less demanding prose. The big difference is in how they are rewarded and protected popular works like Jonathon Seagull are copyright protected and registered (if not plagarism) for generations while legal systems make their efforts to collect from infringers simple and clear.
Inventors are on the other hand maligned, and whole segments of society side with the foulest criminal companies whose proven guilt in smashing small inventors and companies (they did me both ways) was the subject of major action by the Justice Department.
If an inventor or the owner of an invention has a solid case against infringers it is not just fair but VITAL to our system of building the future on technologies that they prevail. In that new proposed law like S 515 (in which not ONE individual inventors opinion was ever sought or given instead corporations dressed up as inventors lied their asses off) build a further wall against individual inventors and small (less then 10 person) groups and make their ability to build on their unique ideas have less value our society and economy is the big loser.
I have many patents (100 issued and pending) and even more inventions (defined as those contained in the latter patents about 2000) including a method for high speed inverse FFT a very powerful basic idea which when one understands that its just the simple arithmetic of the inverse devolved into linear components is OBVIOUS. All really good inventions are obvious after you are told the idea, and each of these is subject to search attacks IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER which of course the examiner always does as does all the people who after the fact describe something as obvious. What is obvious to me is someone who has had his work taken by the powerful because its simplicity made it easy to steal is that I am trapped without an obvious way out- perhaps someone can invent one for me.
A software invention is no different then a hardware invention it takes insight and work to make a new idea successful, whether its gesture control (our invention in 1987 in the pointer control software for my invention Felix running on Windows 1.0 no software patents in those days) or a new way to nanomachine at 10 atom level nmSeries software for our nanotech spinout RAVE LLC.
You can never know the special inventions societies poor choices have crushed or killed. You just know that societies go from creative (Islam in the middle ages) to repressive (Islam in the 18th and 19th centuries).
Re: Odom, Masnick and Obviousness
Mr. Kley, I’m sure you had a good point, but it got lost in all the poor grammar. It’s hard to understand what you are saying when you use run-on sentences. Please use commas judiciously.
Re: Re: Odom, Masnick and Obviousness
Smart ass you are, dude
Haven’t passed bar exam yet already teaching those with credentials how to post on Mikey’s shitty blog
Way to go, kid…
You should make one of the SCOTUS justices
Those fellas are not far from you intellectually
Just read the KSR or Bilski decision
Gosh, do I hate all lawyers !!!
Re: Re: Re: Odom, Masnick and Obviousness
Agh
Bilski was CAFC’s not SCOTUS’s
Ebay was Scotus’s
Hate them all
Re: Re: Re: Odom, Masnick and Obviousness
Smart ass you are, dude
Haven’t passed bar exam yet already teaching those with credentials how to post on Mikey’s shitty blog
Way to go, kid…
I’m sure that the credentials of which you speak likely do not include a degree in English. Otherwise the post likely would have been written with more clarity. “Those with credentials” do themselves a great disservice by not being able to communicate their ideas clearly.
You should make one of the SCOTUS justices
Those fellas are not far from you intellectually
Just read the KSR or Bilski decision
Gosh, do I hate all lawyers !!!
You claim to hate lawyers, and yet when you want to assert your intellectual property, who you gonna call? That’s right, a lawyer.
Oh, and if you want to get into a intellectual jousting match with the likes of Antonin Scalia or Steven Breyer, then you’re going to have to bring a lot more than that weak sauce about KSR and Bilski. Perhaps you should stop being a whiny bitch and realize that there are other concerns that the patent laws must have than the selfish concerns of people like you.
Re: Re: Re:2 Odom, Masnick and Obviousness
Edit: that is not to say that I am to be associated with the likes of Scalia or Breyer. I just wanted to point out that Angry Douche is in no position to be challenging their wisdom.
Re: Re: Re:3 Odom, Masnick and Obviousness
“Angry Douche is in no position to be challenging their wisdom.”
Actually, I am
With two MS and one Phd degree (all in hard sciences and engineeirng) I think I know a little better then those undereducatd SCOTUS and CAFC fellas about the distinction between software and hardware, for example
And yes, you are right I do not have a degree in English
As a matter of fact English is my third language
It’s for demagogues like you and Mikey to teach others about proper English (all without being able to speak any other language)
Loooooosers !!!
Re: Re: Re:4 Odom, Masnick and Obviousness
With two MS and one Phd degree (all in hard sciences and engineeirng) I think I know a little better then those undereducatd SCOTUS and CAFC fellas about the distinction between software and hardware, for example
Perhaps you do, but your science and engineering degrees do not give you more expertise on the economic or legal rationale for whether either hardware or software should be patentable subject matter or not than that which the aforementioned federal judges have.
And yes, you are right I do not have a degree in English
As a matter of fact English is my third language
It’s for demagogues like you and Mikey to teach others about proper English (all without being able to speak any other language)
While I am impressed with your ability to speak three languages, that does not make communicating your points clearly and articulately any less paramount if you want to be taken seriously, regardless of whatever language you use. Unless you want to be considered an idiot (which, given your behavior on this blog, you apparently do), it would behoove you to use proper English when you post.
Loooooosers !!!
For someone who claims to be quite educated, you act like quite a juvenile.
Re: Re: Re:4 Odom, Masnick and Obviousness
all without being able to speak any other language
We saw your use of your other languages and since it never involves anything more that cursing, there really isn’t much of a value to you having (supposedly) having them. Granted, you are not doing all too well with actually expressing any ideas in English either. Aside from you being a troll, of course. Davai, goni mat 😉
Re: Re: Re:5 Odom, Masnick and Obviousness
Blya, da ty mudak
Re: Re: Re:6 Odom, Masnick and Obviousness
Thank you for proving my point, angry dude. Even for a 22 year old troll that you are, you could do better.
I look forward to your submittal of an article for publication in a law journal that expands upon your review of the CAFC’s Bilski decision.
“He’s asking for 25% of all profits on nearly 30 different software products, because those software products happen to have toolbar menus where the buttons are in editable groups. This is an obvious minor feature on a minor feature of a minor feature.”
that is for a court of law to determine. you are not competent.
Re: Re:
that is for a court of law to determine. you are not competent.
You’re not allowed to express an opinion on anything you haven’t personally experienced. You are not competent.
Communication Skills
It is not uncommon for inventors to have poor communication skills. There is some reason to believe that the left handed approach which gives an inventor insight into how to invent may be related to the way people compensate for for often severe imbalances in abilities.
Poor communication skills is not a good indication of how bright the person is. For example, I excelled in science and math and my written skills were very poor early in life. I was about thirty before I decided that those skills were important enough to master. Yet my IQ places me at about one in a million. I acknowledge that IQ tests are not a good measure of a persons worth to society, and the same is true for those whose primary skill is in communication.
We see examples all the time of people with great communication skills who never have original thoughts, especially on TechDIRT, Slashdot, in politics, many if not most programmers, etc. We also see that those skills also go hand in hand with marginally developed ethical and moral reasoning capabilities.
Everyone may recall that Mike was personally offended when I pointed out that his failure to grasp why his position advocating socialization of inventors patent properties is wrong for both ethical-moral and legal reasons. I questioned rather his issues are related to genes or nurturing. His response demonstrated how this kind of handicap blinds those suffering from the defect to the ramifications of their actions. In the end I think that poor communication skills is preferable to the kinds of handicaps associated with those who do have very good communication skills.
Ronald J. Riley,
Speaking only on my own behalf.
President – http://www.PIAUSA.org – RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director – http://www.InventorEd.org – RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow – http://www.patentPolicy.org
President – Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 – (202) 318-1595 – 9 am to 8 pm EST.
Re: socialization of inventors patent properties ???
Oh NO
Mikey is not advocating socialization of inventors patents
Socialization of patents is what we had in the old Soviet Union – an inventor was given an “inventor’s certificate” but no right to make any money
The State owned all inventions outright and was using them as it wished – rather inefficiently in the retrospect
But nobody was allowed to profit from their own or someone else’s invention, so at the very least it was a fair system
Mikey, on the other hand, is advocating stealing of inventions from small poor guys by the rich and powerful corporations (this is what he gets paid for): in other words he is advocating “patent fairness” as defined by the Coalition of Patent Piracy
So in my eyes, he is no better than a street punk trying to steal my wallet