I really hope what he is doing is deliberately launching a ridiculous large scale patent suit designed to fail on a massive scale that will undermine all future software patent suits, and therefore the whole software patent system.
I had a similar reaction. The good news is that, regardless of his true intentions, enough high-profile ridiculous suits like this will be the most powerful catalyst for severe reform.
> enough high-profile ridiculous suits like this will be the most powerful catalyst for severe reform.
The problem here is that as long as these suits are lost there is plenty of force behind those that say that 'the system works', so only if Paul Allen would actually win this suit would there be an incentive for such reform. There is no real penalty to bringing a suit like this (other than making a bunch of lawyers richer, but when you need 9 zeros before the comma to express your wealth that's no big deal).
Reputations take a lifetime to build and can be destroyed in a heartbeat. Paul Allen did a fantastic job of building his reputation, and barring a hidden agenda has done an equally impressive job of destroying it, not just with this 'retry' (abort or ignore?) but already with the first incarnation of it.
I'm hoping that there is a hidden side to this but I'm having a hard time dreaming up a scenario where this is not a 'win' for Paul Allen either way in retrospect ("I've done this to destroy the patent system" or "I just made a bunch of money"). Maybe he should state his goal? The worst case outcome for the rest of the world is that he wins this stupid suit, the best case outcome for the world is that he really is a greedy patent troll and triggers patent reform.
If he's doing it with that purpose then I'm all for it but since there is a chance that he will make a great deal of money from this I highly doubt it.
It's funny because over the years I lost patience with Microsoft, Gates and Ballmer with Paul Allen being the last hold-out in terms of being respectable. It's a pity to see that soiled in this way, apparently there is no such thing as 'enough' and abusing the system is just A-Ok.
Patents are essentially a licence to write new laws. A list of millions of banned actions. The only difference is the people who write these new laws aren't elected, and the laws expire after 20 years. There is no way to tell if something is banned or not, except by getting sued.
I don't know how anyone thinks this is a good idea.
Even if they were not vague. Even if he described in intricate detail exactly how a newsfeed works, or a search engine works in 1990, say. And you look at the patent and go WOW, HE TOTALLY DESCRIBED WHAT GOOGLE DOES. If he didn't build any technology to implement it, if he didn't struggle with the development, with scaling, attracting users, building a market, then do you think it's fair for Google to just pay him for merely describing something to the US Patent Office and then keeping it secret? This hampers competition. This is not good.
It's not Paul Allen we should be complaining about. After all, the patent law makes Intellectual Ventures and Interval Licensing very good ideas as companies. Their business plan is exactly that -- describe some things, then wait a few years, and go litigate.
Have you actually read them? Read the claims? They're software patents, so plenty of folk will hate them just based on that... but they really are not poorly drafted patents.
No. As I am not a patent attorney and do not speak legalese, I had to concern myself with the abstract descriptions only. Have you? These appear to cover what is essentially the * symbol appearing over your "notifications" icon after a timeout on facebook, or the (1) appearing on twitter if you leave it idle for long enough and a new tweet appears in your stream.
Do you think that this is unique enough an idea that others should have to pay Paul Allen's company for the rights to use it? This was something that I was going to implement on thingist. Should I not do this because I would be infringing on a legitimate (legitimate in the spirit of patent law) bit of intellectual property?
This is why patent trolling is so damaging to the community. I'm not a lawyer, I have no idea. The best I can do is read the abstract of a patent (if I can even find it) and try not to step on anybody's toes. For somebody like me, a lowly 23 year old kid making side projects in his spare time and day-dreaming about someday moving to San Francisco and getting to hang out at the cool kids table, this stuff is terrifying. Paul Allen, a multi-billionaire with a fleet of private jets and private yachts and private submarines and private multi-million-dollar-per-year-retainer lawyers might SUE ME.
SO I have a couple of choices. I can implement what seems like a completely obvious feature and risk being sued by the largest Goliath in the industry, or I can follow the written law and not.
That's kind of my point. The title means nothing. The abstract means almost nothing. The figures mean almost nothing. Have a look here for a brief guide to reading a patent, written for nonlawyers. http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/09/how-to-read-a-patent-...
That isn't what I asked. This has nothing to do with understanding the world around you, this has to do with understanding things that were written down on small slips of paper and filed away in boxes inside of a building in Virginia.
The slips of paper (which have now been scanned into a computer; images of them are now available on the internet) are there to mark the occasion of the first person writing that particular series of symbols down on that particular piece of paper. The idea is that if you write a certain series of symbols down on the paper, you are the only person that is to be allowed to do whatever it was that you described with the symbols. If somebody doesn't know about the occasion of you writing down the symbols and does whatever it was you described (well, in this case, predicted they might do), then you are entitled to a portion of that unlucky person's assets.
The entire thing is absurd, and if you can't see that, then I suggest you devote more time to "understanding how the world around you works".
His point is that people who read the abstract to a patent and declare that it's not novel are making the people who actually read the patent and come to the same conclusion look bad.
The abstract is not the patent. It's not meant to be the patent. It's not a legally binding part of the patent. So talking about it in a way that refers to its novelty is just as useful as talking about the novelty of the typeface they used or the brand of paper they used.
> That isn't what I asked. This has nothing to do with understanding the world around you, this has to do with understanding things that were written down on small slips of paper and filed away in boxes inside of a building in Virginia.
Unfortunately, the Vogon Destructor Fleet was not moved by this appeal to reason.
Understand that the patent is really just a pretext. If Paul freakin' Allen the billionaire wants to make trouble for you, he can and will. He probably won't. Just do your thing. If there's something you can do to get his attention on that level, you win.
>>Also, Mueller said, "[s]hould Google be served an injunction as a result of Interval's suit, owners of Android phones would experience a very significant degradation of the user experience."
Well that sucks. It would be terrible if I had my phone's services greatly impaired so this guy can go through his little patent suit.
While Apple's iTunes Store, App Store, and Apple TV are targeted in the lawsuit, iOS was notably not named as infringing Interval's patents.
Notification is an area in which iOS is conspicuously lagging behind Android. I wonder if this "peripheral attention" patent has something to do with that.
The patent system needs an enema. Most of these are so broad it's like patenting water. Apple recently patented the 'slide to unlock' UI concept. If I'm not mistaken, the aliens in the Preditor movies had already established that as prior art and should probably go pay Apple's attorney's a visit.
Paul Allen is taking advantage of the law. There is nothing really wrong with that. If you think the law is wrong, then let's work to try to change it. I personally find these intellectual property monopolies to be more menace than good. Especially the 17-year-long patents for SOFTWARE!
> Paul Allen is taking advantage of the law. There is nothing really wrong with that.
Why? If a law is wrong, unfair or immoral, taking advantage of it is not right, it is actually wrong. That being said, it is legal, but being legal does not always imply rightness.
Who says a law is wrong, unfair or immoral? Certainly not the legislators. Even if it is, taking advantage of the law might still not be unfair or immoral. If anything, it will highlight that the law needs to be changed.
Anyone really believes this is not coordinated with Microsoft?
So the next phase will be when e.g. Wozniak put up a software patent company and sues Microsoft, Google and Nokia? And then some investors in Google will finance a patent troll company which...
If you're still feeling cynical, you can think of it this way: MS has enough dirt on Allen from his years there to bring him down if he threatens them :-)
I know who's involved. Your point about dirt is very valid - I didn't think of it because a patent troll crosses a line after which he doesn't value friends.
Not to mention Allen still probably owns a large amount of Microsoft stock, which would probably not respond well to major patent litigation, especially if MS lost and had to not only pay out damages but re-implement in a non-infringing way.
If you object to software patents, then it's a good thing - but only when it's over.
During Patent Armageddon, software is going to suck. There will be injunctions on the import and sale of all sorts of products (read: you won't be able to buy shiny new technology, or perhaps even old technology), technological progress will slow down, and being a start up will suck because it will be incredibly beneficial for companies to sue start-ups to build up precedent for their patents. (Note that if this doesn't happen - if there isn't an epic battle over patents - it isn't Armageddon, it's just an apocalypse, being the wide-spread revelation that software patents are horrible things).
Yes, there will be reform, probably large-scale reform. However, it won't come until things get rather bad.
Patent Armageddon already happened, back in the days when radio technology was being developed at a pace that makes the software industry's progress look slow and boring.
The lawyers won, as usual. They'll win this time, too.
If he is he's a hero.
If not he's a dick.