Unconditionally Bad Patent Results

from the the-troll-scenario dept

While plenty of folks who dislike the patent system are fans of the term "patent trolls," I tend to avoid it unless it absolutely fits. Since, by it's very nature, it's derogatory, it tends to shut off conversation rather than encourage it. However, there's an interesting post over at Patently-O (which normally tends to be pretty pro-patent) from a law professor trying to define what are "troll patents" (rather than patent trolls). He makes a pretty sensible argument: if you have a scenario in which the patent clearly contributes nothing to society, it should be considered a problem patent. That is, it's a scenario where the "invention" in question would have happened at the same pace even in the absence of the patent in question. Here are his conditions to make that determination:

1. Is owned by someone that does not practice the invention.
2. Is infringed by, and asserted against, non-copiers exclusively or almost exclusively. By copying I mean any kind of derivation, not just slavish replication.
3. Has no licensees practicing the particular patented invention except for defendants in (2) who took licenses as settlement.
4. Is asserted against a large industry that is, based on (2), composed of non-copiers.

If those four conditions are met, then it means that the product on the market would have occurred either way, and the only thing the patent serves to do is transfer money from the company making the product to whoever holds the patent. Considering the very purpose of the patent system is to "promote the progress," it's quite clear that the conditions above mean that no progress has been promoted -- and, in fact, the opposite has occurred.

Of course, if we actually had an independent invention defense against patent infringement, this whole debate wouldn't matter nearly as much.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Venture Capitalist Explains How Patents Can Be A Tax On Innovation

from the not-all-vcs-demand-them dept

Whenever we get into discussions on the massive downsides associated with patents, someone has to chime in with some ridiculousness about how "venture capitalists won't invest in companies without patents." There are a few easy responses to that -- including, if the VC you're talking to demands patents to invest, he or she is probably so clueless you're better off going elsewhere. That may sound flippant, but it's not. Patents have so little impact on the success of a startup that anyone focused on patents before investing has probably never helped lead a brand new startup to success. If they had, they'd know that it's execution that matters significantly more than any "patents."

Besides, over the years, we've seen more and more venture capitalists come to the realization that in many cases, patents do a lot more harm than good. We've written about a few venture capitalists who have come out about problems with patents -- and over the weekend Union Square Ventures' Fred Wilson (a friend, and Techdirt reader), wrote about just how much damage patents have done towards innovation -- specifically with some of his portfolio companies. Specifically, he's talking about having those companies sued by non-practicing entities (he uses the term "trolls" which we like to avoid). He also mentions -- in the comments -- how USV doesn't require companies to have patents, and he's invested in plenty of companies without patents.

At one point, Wilson writes:

I'm a fan of allowing market forces to work in most cases, but not in the area of patents.

But, of course, patents are not a proper market mechanism. They're the opposite of one. They're about the gov't creating monopolies. That's not "letting markets work." It's declaring that the first company to claim an invention gets to control the market, rather than letting the actual market decide which company can best execute in delivering the product to the market. A supporter of free markets shouldn't support the patent system. It's not a free market at all.

From there, though, Wilson kicks off a good discussion on how to deal with such things. He points out that it's often cheaper just to pay off the patent holders (and most companies do that), but that just encourages them to continue creating a "tax on innovation." So, instead, he wants to discuss what reforms can be put in place, with two initial suggestions:

1. If you sue someone for infringement and lose, you pay the defendants' legal costs.
2. "Use it or lose it." If you're not putting the patent into practice, you don't get to use it.

There are problems with both of these, unfortunately. The first is utterly dependent on the already screwed up judicial process for patent lawsuits (hello East Texas!). There are plenty of awful patent lawsuits where the patent holder wins. So, I'm not against this proposal as a way of making patent holders think twice about totally bogus lawsuits, but it's not going to stop a lot of suits. In fact, it may just encourage more suits in the hopes that hitting one "big one" pays for all the bad ones.

The second one is also a little troubling, because if a patent is valid (a huge if), you could potentially see a situation where it makes sense for the company to license it rather than develop it. Instead, however, I'd offer an alternative: if the patent holder is not developing a product based on the patent, then (a) the courts cannot issue any kind of injunction to stop the production of the product by others (which is the direction we're moving in thanks to the MercExchange decision) and (b) any damages should be greatly limited to the cost of a reasonable license plus a small penalty.

However, if Wilson is serious about looking for ways to fix the patent system, he should look to support an independent invention defense that would invalidate the patent. This one change would solve so many of the problems with the patent system. Since the patent system was designed to encourage independent invention, it shouldn't be discouraging it and denying those inventors who came up with an idea on their own the ability to commercialize their inventions. Furthermore, since patents are only supposed to be granted on inventions that are non-obvious to a person skilled in the art, the fact that multiple individuals came up with the same idea should be proof enough that the idea doesn't pass that test.

It's no secret that I'm not a fan of the patent system at all. There is so much evidence out there that patents do nothing to increase innovation and plenty of evidence to show how they actually stifle innovation, that I think the patent system actively works against its stated purpose ("to promote the progress of science and the useful arts"). However, if we must have such a system, then put in place an independent invention defense which also invalidates the patent, and we'd be a lot further towards a reasonable system -- especially since it's so rare to find patent infringement lawsuits that involve any actual copying.

77 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Exposing The Patent Troll Playbook... And How To (Almost) Beat It

from the this-is-innovation? dept

We've written about patent hoarding firm RTI before, back when it sued Google. At the time, we pointed to Rich Tehrani's fantastic article about the company and how it was basically one guy who claimed his rather narrow patents covered pretty much everything having to do with VoIP. Pretty much any company of any substantial size that had anything to do with VoIP had been on the receiving end of threats and/or lawsuits from RTI.

Now, Joe Mullin points us to an absolutely fantastic description from the CEO of Fonality exposing RTI's patent badgering techniques -- and how Fonality fought back and (almost) won. The "almost" part is the sad part. In the end, they still paid the guy a little bit of money, though it was significantly less than what he had been asking for (and what he had sued them for). And, tragically, this plays into RTI's game plan as well -- as part of his initial pitch is sending over a list of all the other companies who have settled over these patents, which makes plenty of companies feel that since those other companies "settled" then it wasn't worth fighting and they might as well settle too. This is unfortunate.

But at least the post describes how to push back on his various claims. Here's a short excerpt, but it's worth reading the whole thing:

It was then that Jimmy enacted the second part of the classic troll playbook. Peer pressure. Jimmy started to list (and provide documentation to support) literally hundreds of other "big" companies that had already settled with him over this same patent. Heck, it seemed like everyone from AT&T to Cisco was on this list. A sustained bout of queasiness settled over me. Yikes, if they couldn't beat this guy, what chance did I have? He even told us how he had sued the mighty Google for $5B!...

But, then a funny thing happened. When we asked him *how* much he had settled for, he wouldn't tell us. Nor did asking "the Google" (you know, that series of interconnected pipes) help us much. There just seemed to be a dearth of information on either settlement amounts or terms. Did they settle for a million dollars? A billion? A free iPod? An agreement not to mention that they settled for zero? Well, heck, if nobody was writing about it, and Jimmy wasn't boasting about it, it probably wasn't much to boast about anyway. So, when my lawyers called and asked us if we were ready to settle, I did what every strong leader does in a moment of crisis. I put the call on speakerphone, crawled under my desk, and cowered with hands over head. It was from that towering position of omniscience that I gave the proud warrior cry to "fight on!"

Hopefully more folks will start exposing some of the sneakier tactics used in patent infringement lawsuits -- and how to fight back as well.

77 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Admitted Patent Troll Finds The Phrase 'Shell Entity' Offensive

from the oh-really? dept

You may recall last year that we wrote about a patent lawsuit where the judge banned the use of the word "patent troll." That seemed reasonable enough, since it's clearly a negatively loaded phrase. However, it looks like some patent attorneys are trying to go even further with that concept. Ray Niro, in defending Scott Harris (who, you may recall, licensed his own patents to be used in lawsuits against his own firms' clients), is demanding that the phrase "shell entities" not be used either, claiming that they, too, are used negatively. That's because, like so many patent holders these days, Harris used shell companies to hold the patents and to sue companies. Of course, "shell entities" is a descriptive term, not one that is clearly designed as an insult like "patent troll."

Besides, this seems quite rich, coming in defense of Harris, who used to own the website ImAPatentTroll.com. And, indeed, the lawyers on the other side of the case wasted no time in pointing this out:

Additionally, the Motion to Strike asserts that the term 'shell entity' is synonymous, in this context, with the term "patent troll." Significantly, Mr. Harris, even while at Fish & Richardson, sponsored a website, imapatenttroll.com, in which he proudly and openly referred to himself as a "patent troll." Truth is an absolute defense.

Separately, it is also rather amusing to see patent system defenders get upset about the phrase "patent trolls" when they're so quick to refer to any sort of patent reform as "patent deform", companies in favor of patent reform "The Piracy Coalition," while, of course, insisting that any individual in favor of patent reform a "shill."

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Maybe Patent Trolls Wouldn't Be So Hated If We Called Them Patent Elves

from the presto-chango dept

I'm not a huge fan of the term "patent troll" which I agree can be unfairly negative, and without a clear definition often leads to problems. Recently, it seems that the term is most often applied to "non-practicing entities" making some people think that the patent system is mainly abused by those operations. That's a bit of misdirection. There's just as much, if not more, abuse of the patent system done by large companies. If there were actual proof (still waiting!) that the patent system actually did lead to more innovation, then I can easily understand why a non-practicing entity that just licensed its works could make sense. Unfortunately, most of the evidence suggests that patents don't actually lead to more innovation. In those cases, the only thing that non-practicing entities end up doing is hindering innovation.

However, Joe Mullin points us to a rather odd paper, suggesting that non-practicing entities are a good thing and should be called "patent elves" rather than "patent trolls." Part of what makes this paper so odd, is that one of the writers works for that law firm that recently advertised that it wouldn't work with patent trolls. Meanwhile, I guess it wants to let those "patent elves" in the back door.

As for the actual paper, it's really not all that different from earlier papers that try to present non-practicing entities as a boon to competition and innovation. They're all based on a few faulty assumptions, however. This latest one is basically a massive broken windows fallacy. That is, it basically states "if specialization is good, more specialization is better" in that it creates more economic activity. What it fails to do, however, is take into account how the market is distorted by that greater economic activity. Just as the broken window fallacy doesn't take into account the hidden costs of what kind of economic activity would take place in the absence of the broken window, this paper fails to take into account the innovation that occurs in the absence of the patent-holding non-practicing entity -- and simply assumes (falsely) that the patent holder is the key component in driving the innovation forward. Instead, it's much more likely that the patent holder represents the broken window -- a cost that detracts from more efficient economic activity, such as actually bringing a product to market where real innovation occurs.

58 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How The GPL Defangs Patent Trolls

from the mutual-defense dept

Last week, Red Hat settled an abusive patent lawsuit brought by a company called FireStar software. Way back in 2006, I discussed the patent in question, which covers some rather broad and obvious software concepts. It looks like Red Hat has settled the lawsuit in a way that extends patent protection to the entire free software community.

Why would a patent troll agree to this? Don Marti explains how the GPL strengthened Red Hat's bargaining position. In a normal patent licensing negotiation, the patent troll would demand a per-user license fee that would be passed along to the vendor's customers. But the GPL specifically prohibits Red Hat from doing this; if Red Hat agreed to pay per-user royalties, it would be in violation of the GPL and would lose the right to distribute the software at all. That put Red Hat in a strong negotiating position because Firestar knew Red Hat wasn't bluffing. In Don Marti's apt metaphor, a patent troll suing a free software company is like "robbing a store where the safe is on a time lock" -- the victim couldn't give him the goods if he wanted to. As a result, FireStar's only option was to grant Red Hat a patent license that covered not only Red Hat but everyone in the free software community whose products are derived from Red Hat's. Obviously, that greatly reduces FireStar's potential patent trolling profits, because it can't shake down all of Red Hat's competitors. This gives patent trolls a powerful incentive to focus on shaking down proprietary software companies, and leave free software vendors alone.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Law Firm Advertises That It Won't Represent Patent Trolls

from the backlash-time dept

With the growing attention on the issue of "patent trolls" (a term I am not a fan of), it appears that at least one IP law firm is taking a stand. It's come out with an advertisement in which it urges clients not to support any law firm that represents "patent trolls." It's certainly nice to see law firms be upfront about the fact that they believe these types of firms are abusing the patent system, even in such an in-your-face advertising manner. Hopefully tech companies will start asking their lawyers if they represent patent holding firms and will take their business elsewhere if they do. If it becomes a big enough issue, then perhaps lawyers will think twice before representing such firms.

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Looking Back On Another Year Of Patent Insanity

from the by-the-numbers dept

The Patent Troll Tracker is doing what he does best (well, other than pissing off patent hoarders and their lawyers): tracking patent litigation. As we approach the end of the year, he's got a nice rundown on some numbers concerning patent litigation. For those who think that pointless and wasteful patent litigation is on the decline, think again. Even in just the last three months, the pace has been accelerating -- perhaps as patent hoarders rush to get cases in before any patent reform makes progress in Congress -- or before the Supreme Court (thankfully) quashes another abuse of the patent system. The Troll Tracker looks at the Fortune 100 to see who got sued the most for patent infringement, and found that the top 35 companies were sued a combined 500 times for patent infringement in the last two years alone. That's an awful lot of money wasted on lawyers that could be going towards actual innovation. Of the lawsuits over the past two years, approximately 50% came from companies who didn't actually make any products themselves. However, in the last 3 months, that number shoots up to 70% from companies that don't make products. And if you limit the list to tech companies, 80% of the lawsuits came from companies that don't make products. Shouldn't this be ringing some alarm bells?

41 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Patent Attorney Ups Bounty On Troll Tracker, Apparently Doesn't Like Anonymous Speech

from the thin-skinned-patent-attorneys dept

Last week we had the bizarre story of how a bigshot patent attorney, Raymond Niro, was so disturbed by the anonymous Patent Troll Tracker shining some light on Niro and some of Niro's clients, that he was offering a $5000 bounty to anyone who could identify the Tracker. Niro has now responded to some of the stories about the bounty, where he tries to "correct a few misconceptions" about the story. On one point, he is quite accurate -- the patent he's been accusing the Troll Tracker of infringing is not owned by Acacia, but by another firm, Global Patent Holdings. Of course, the Tracker had already corrected that story a few days ago, so Niro wasn't actually adding anything there. Also, Niro states that Global Patent Holdings "has no connection to Acacia" which is a bit misleading. It may not currently have any connection, but three years ago Acacia bought most of Global Patent Holdings' assets -- and it was even misreported by the NY Times that Acacia had bought the entire company. So, it was a pretty easy mistake to make -- especially since these patent hoarding firms use so many shell companies to hide their identities.

More importantly, Niro first raises the bounty to $10,000 for information identifying the Tracker, and then states that the Tracker needs to be exposed to be "held accountable for what he says." He also notes "if you really have anything truthful to say, you are not afraid of identifying yourself." You would think that Niro, as an intellectual property lawyer, would be well aware of both the historical importance of anonymity and the US courts repeated decisions pointing out that anonymity is part of our free speech rights. As for not "being afraid" to identify yourself, would Niro have said the same thing of the authors of The Federalist Papers? There's often a good reason to be anonymous -- which is why the courts protect it as free speech. Niro also insists that he's not trying to identify the Tracker in order to sue over the patent in question, but that would be much more believable if Niro hadn't used that same patent against another critic and also sent the Tracker an email telling him that he was infringing on that patent. As for the patent itself, Niro makes it clear that: "Anyone that operates a website runs the risk of infringing Global's patent if (as we believe) that patent covers the manner in which JPEG images are displayed on a website." There are some people who can make reasonable claims that they're trying to use the patent system to further the cause of innovation. But when someone claims that he can sue any website that has a JPEG image in it, you have to wonder how that could possibly "promote the progress of science and useful arts."

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..

What Was That About Marshall Texas Becoming Less Popular For Patent Lawsuits?

from the and-the-numbers-are-in... dept

Over the last few months there's been some talk that Marshall, Texas was becoming less popular for questionable patent lawsuits. If so, someone hasn't told the patent hoarders. The Patent Troll Tracker has come out with his November Troll Call, noting that 244 companies were sued for patent infringement in eastern Texas alone, compared to 162 in Los Angeles, San Francisco/Silicon Valley, New York City, Chicago, Delaware, and New Jersey... combined. Of course, it is true that a number of the Texas lawsuits were against a large number of companies in a single shot, which helps that total get to be so large. However, there's a reason why those who are suing a bunch of companies at once all choose eastern Texas, and it's not because the district has suddenly become unfriendly to patent hoarders.

2 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Patent Attorney Offers $5k For Identity Of Anonymous Patent Troll Tracker

from the getting-under-people's-skin-apparently... dept

A few months back, we discovered the blog of an anonymous IP lawyer called The Patent Troll Tracker. It had great info, and you've probably noticed that we're now linking to stories from that site on a fairly regular basis. Sometime before we became aware of the site however, the Troll Tracker got into a little scuffle with a bigshot patent attorney, Raymond Niro of the law firm Niro, Scavone. The Mises Institute has a recap of the situation, but basically the Troll Tracker had mentioned Niro in a way that Niro felt was unflattering, and Niro asked the Troll Tracker to identify himself -- not, apparently, for a defamation charge, but for patent infringement. How could a blog post (unflattering or not) be considered patent infringement? Apparently, the patent in question, owned by Acacia (who, you may recall is considered the worst patent system offender by the EFF), can be interpreted to mean that posting a JPG image to your site is infringement. It also happens that Niro is the patent attorney who has filed some of Acacia's patent infringement lawsuits, including against the Green Bay Packers for violating this same patent. Apparently, Niro also used the same claim of patent infringement against well-known patent critic Gregory Aharonian. It's an interesting twist on patent infringement cases to use an incredibly broad patent that covers "posting a JPEG to a website" to basically go after anyone you don't like. Somehow, I doubt that's what the founders of the patent system had in mind. Hell, I'd guess that it's not what anyone who had any part in writing patent laws had in mind.

Of course, Niro has run into something of a problem in trying to sue the anonymous Troll Tracker. It's that anonymity bit. So, apparently, he's now put out a $5,000 bounty to anyone who can identify the Troll Tracker. Law.com has more details on this as well as some other odd moves by Niro. Who knows if he will actually sue (though, the earlier stories suggest it's not out of the realm of possibility), but it's stunning that a bigshot patent attorney would be so afraid of an anonymous critic of patent system misuse that he not only would threaten him with patent infringement claims on such an incredibly broad patent, but also is willing to put up $5,000 just to find out the guy's identity. Yes, this is what our patent system has been reduced to. Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Patent Hoarders Hiding Behind Shell Companies In Lawsuits

from the can't-admit-anything dept

While it used to be that patent hoarding companies like Acacia would file their lawsuits under their own names, more recently the trend has been to hide behind a series of shell companies. The latest is Altitude Capital Partners, a company we've discussed in the past. It's raised hundreds of millions of dollars solely to invest in patents. While officially a private equity firm, it's clear that the company is clearly just a patent hoarder. While it appears to have changed its website somewhat, it used to list "Number and Quality of Potential Infringers" as an investment criteria. It's clearly taken that to heart in its latest series of lawsuits against companies like Google, Yahoo, AOL, RIM, Palm and many others. The interesting thing, though, is that Altitude is doing its best to hide its involvement in these lawsuits, just like it tried to hide an earlier investment in Visto. Instead, it's been using a series of shell companies that are clearly formed solely for the purpose of filing these lawsuits. In the case of Altitude, it appears to be quite difficult to even track down that they're involved at all. Acacia has been doing the same thing as well. There could be a few reasons for the use of such shell companies -- but a big one might be to pretend that these really are cases of "little inventors" vs "big companies" instead of the truth, which appears to be big time investors with hundreds of millions of dollars looking to use questionable patents to squeeze money out of successful companies. Just how Jefferson and Madison envisaged things when they set out to create the patent system.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Acacia's Latest Target: NetFlix

from the sue,-sue,-sue dept

Acacia has become one of the most hated firms by technology companies that actually do stuff. That's because Acacia is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) firms out there in the business of buying up patents solely to sue companies. Acacia learned a while ago, though, that it was best to keep its name out of many of these suits, so it apparently tries to set up subsidiaries for many of the patents it buys (sometimes giving them silly names to make people think the companies actually do something). Now, one of those subsidiaries, named Refined Recommendation Corporation is suing Netflix over a patent it holds on optimizing interest potential. It's a patent on the idea of making recommendations or presenting specific information based on user actions. I can recall both individuals and companies working on similar things well before this patent was applied for in 2000, but that's a different issue altogether. Does anyone believe that Netflix (and plenty of other companies) wouldn't be doing content recommendations for people without this particular "breakthrough"?

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Patent Troll Attorney Licensed Patents To Be Used Against His Own Firm's Clients

from the gotta-keep-the-company-busy dept

Within the patent attorney/patent trolling world, there's been a story gathering steam over the last couple months that seems to only get more bizarre every week. It started, simply enough, at the beginning of September when a company, which was just formed a few months ago, called Illinois Computer Research, sued Google for patent infringement. The patent in question (which amusingly enough, can be found hosted at Google) is officially for "Enhancing touch and feel on the internet". The details show that it's really just describing how you might represent a book online -- and, in fact, the lawsuit points to Google's book scanning project as being infringing. There's nothing all that interesting there, other than yet another case of a company doing nothing suing a company that's doing quite a bit of innovating using an overly broad an obvious patent. However, at the end of the article linked above there's a small aside that has turned out to be much more important: "The inventor listed on the patent is Scott C. Harris of San Diego, Calif. Presumably, he is the same Scott C. Harris listed as a Principal in the San Diego office of Fish & Richardson P.C, a patent prosecution firm." From that, you would probably assume that Fish and Richardson was behind ICR's lawsuit. In fact, you'd be wrong. Google is actually a Fish & Richardson client... whereas ICR is represented by Niro, Scavone, a firm that has fought against Fish & Richardson quite a bit.

Then the details started to come out. It appears that a top partner at Fish & Richardson was filing for patents on the side and then licensing them out to patent trolls, often so that they would then sue companies -- including companies represented by his own employer, Fish & Richardson. Now, I know I said that I'm not a fan of the term "patent troll," but in this case it appears completely warranted, as the very same Scott Harris happens to run a website (currently taken down) called ImAPatentTroll.com. If he's okay with it, then I see no reason not to use it to describe him. Fish & Richardson fired Harris, but the story doesn't end there. Illinois Computer Research isn't just suing Google... it's also suing Fish & Richardson for supposedly trying to get Harris to get it to drop the suit. Now, Fish & Richardson has filed quite a response, claiming that Harris used company time, equipment and resources to file for a bunch of patents -- and then, rather than just licensing or selling those patents, would work out special deals with the companies he licensed the patents to, allowing him (personally) to get a cut of any legal wins those firms get in suing for infringement. He even would point out firms that might be infringing on the patent. Many of the negotiations for those relationships were done using his Fish & Richardson email -- even one email discussion that pointed out that Google (again, an F&R client who Harris had even done some work for) was potentially infringing on Harris' patent and could be a good target for a lawsuit. Welcome to the lovely world of patent extortion, where the money from the practice is so lucrative that one of the highest paid lawyers at a top law firm would quietly license his patents to be used against his own firm's clients in exchange for a cut of the profits.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Playlist Patented... Everyone Sued... But Did Apple Pay Up?

from the sounds-like-it dept

A bunch of folks have been submitting the latest story on a patent hoarding firm, Premier International Associates, who appears to have absolutely no other business than getting its hands on questionable, overly broad, obvious patents and then suing everyone possible. In this case, the patent is for the basic concept of a playlist, which can be found just about anywhere. So, it should come as little to no surprise that the list of companies sued is quite long, including: Microsoft, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Dell, Lenovo, Toshiba, Viacom, Real, Napster, Samsung, LG, Motorola, Nokia, Sandisk, HP, Acer, Gateway and Yahoo (phew!). That's quite a list, though it's not surprising to see that there are a ton of companies offering software that has a concept so basic and so obvious as a playlist.

However, there is one very interesting point here. Apple is missing from the list. As the folks over at Ars Technica figured out, Premier actually had sued Apple about this same patent back in 2005, but at the same time it was filing all these new patent lawsuits it filed to dismiss the Apple suit, suggesting that Apple most likely paid off the company (perhaps giving it the money needed to suddenly sue every other company in the universe. Apple certainly has a history of doing this. When the company was sued on a rather similar obvious patent on a hierarchical menu-based user interfaces held by Creative, it eventually (after spending some time fighting it) decided to simply pay $100 million to be left alone. Of course, all that did was allow Creative to head out and sue plenty of others. Sound familiar? By settling on these questionable patent claims, all Apple is doing is encouraging more lawsuits of this nature for itself, as well as others.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..