6785540
story
Comments: 186 +- Your Rights Online: Spring Design Sues Barnes & Noble Over Nook IP on Tuesday November 03, @03:40PM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Tuesday November 03, @03:40PM
from the first-out-the-gate dept.
from the first-out-the-gate dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicbooks.gif); width:63px; height:38px;
books
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicpatents.gif); width:75px; height:54px;
patents
bth writes to let us know that Barnes & Noble has been sued by a company called Spring Design, which alleges that the recently announced Nook e-book reader infringes its intellectual property. This isn't a patent troll kind of situation; rather, the claim is misappropriation of trade secrets. Spring Design claims that they have been developing a dual-screen, Android-based e-book reader since 2006, filing patents all the while; and that they showed pretty much everything to Barnes & Noble in the expectation of working together with them to bring their reader to market.
Related Stories
I learned to play guitar just to get the girls, and anyone who says they
didn't is just lyin'!
-- Willie Nelson
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
I'm shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm shocked I tell you! Huge company with an armada of lawyers steals everything from a startup. Next thing you know the execs at B&N will be rewarded for their cleverness.
It's never happened before.
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because it's happened before doesn't mean it shouldn't be newsworthy. These companies need to be exposed for what they are doing as much as possible just like governments should be.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm shocked I tell you! Huge company with an armada of lawyers steals everything from a startup. Next thing you know the execs at B&N will be rewarded for their cleverness.
It's never happened before.
Indeed.
Also, never before in the history of corporate America, has a small company make a predictable copy of product and then sued a bigger competitor for it's equally predictable product. This is all thoroughly uncharted territory. ;)
Absent a lot more information, there's really no way to figure if B&N is remotely guilty of anything at all. Talks about licensing do *not* prevent you from working on a similar product yourself; the practice is routine. If your internal project fails or is delayed, you want a backup--that doesn't commit you to buying or licensing before you've signed a deal. And Slashdot, of all places, should be sceptical of claims that a company "deserves" some space in the IP world just for itself because they thought about something similar.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I like how my previous post was overrated, hehe..
I can't tell if you're joking - I have no idea what or who "Karchofaniz" is... :P
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:4, Informative)
What did they steal? Ideas? Give me a break. Does "An android based E-book reader" constitute a patent worthy idea? Actually, of course it does, and that's why I for one do not see the benefit in supporting such startups in cases like these.
This company is a patent troll. What did they invent? A button that makes text scroll smoothly? A pop up or context sensitive interface? Oh! They invented a two screen device where you control things by moving a stylus on the bottom screen! Perhaps supplemented by additional buttons! How Original!! [nintendo.com] Yes, indeed, all companies implementing any such mechanism on any e-book whatsoever should have to pay these brilliant engineers for their hard worn innovation. /end scarcasm.
The only people who support this company are those who believe that being the first to develop something, or being the first to spew out any old brain fart, entitles you to exclusive ownership and control over all future implementations and revenues involving that thing. It the proverbial American Dream; Winning the lottery through one crazy scheme. Everybody has one in the back of their head, and so the system stands with popular support. I for one utterly reject this model as a basis for technological development and progression.
Patents need to die. Completely. If you can't stand on your own two feet like startups in every other industry, then you shouldn't be in business. Holding the world back until you get your protection money is a despicable practice, no matter how big or how small you are.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ideas per se are neither patentable (inventions using them or implementations of them are) nor copyrightable (expressions of them are).
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:I'm shocked! (Score:4, Informative)
make them sign a contract saying they won't make the same device for some amount of time
Usually such contracts are very difficult to draft as well as get the other party to sign them.
Consider this. I'm an iPhone developer. I've talked to clients where they basically say: "I have a great idea for an application and I'd like to tell you but you'll have to sign so that everything I tell you cannot ever be executed by you alone".
That's rather difficult. They might mention a lot of ideas that I already had, thus limiting myself.
Parent
Oh, slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
I can always rely on slashdot for commentary where something reasonable and somewhat intelligent-sounding:
What did they steal? Ideas? Give me a break. Does "An android based E-book reader" constitute a patent worthy idea? Actually, of course it does, and that's why I for one do not see the benefit in supporting such startups in cases like these.
Quickly transforms into something straight from the mind of a drooling mental patient:
Patents need to die. Completely.
Maybe progress could be made here, if every good idea was not countered with equal amounts of crazy extremism.
It's bogus. They don't even have a patent. (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope. Any small laptop with an ebook reader got there first.
There's a huge difference between "patent-pending" and "we actually have an enforceable patent."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIM thing was because the judge refused to allow a delay while the patent validity was decided, and RIM blinked. RIM was NOT, contrary to your assertion, fined "even after the fact that the patent had been rejected." RIM was never fined - they settled rather than proceed with the case, given that the judge wouldn't allow the delay.
If RIM had actually been fined, they could have had the judgment vacated.
The whole thing IS bogus, because they claim, in part that they started developing this in 2006;
Huh... (Score:2, Informative)
This is unbelievable.... how can a Company as reputable as Barnes and Noble do something this heinous...
What next, a fledgling songwriter will have his lyrics "borrowed" by the next great rap star....
When in Rome, carry a big stick or a rabid Lawyer! :)
The Alex (What B&N ripped off) (Score:5, Informative)
Alex, with its unique Duet Navigator, provides the capability for interaction and navigation techniques of the two screens and furthermore utilizes the capabilities of Android to enhance the reader's experience by supporting interactive access to the Internet for references and links. As the first in the market to offer an e-book with full Internet browsing while reading and with easy navigational control via its touch screen, Alex is well-positioned to offer the most dynamic and powerful reading device in the market.
This thing looks awesome. Good for Spring Design in protecting it's IP. One of my biggest complaints with the Kindle is Amazon's insistence that it be locked down and only do what Amazon wants it to do. The Alex uses Android and sounds like it's a sweet device that might be hackable and could be turned into a really really useful tool.
Here's hoping that Spring Design really are the good guys in this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One of my biggest complaints with the Kindle is Amazon's insistence that it be locked down and only do what Amazon wants it to do.
You mean the inability to load your own text, html, or several other file formats? Oh wait, it already does all that.
Or are you talking about loading your own operating system into it? I hope you put the same restrictions on your TV, Microwave oven, refrigerator, washing machine, etc.. It's built to be an appliance, not a laptop. The hardware is designed for long battery life,
Re:The Alex (What B&N ripped off) (Score:4, Funny)
I dunno, imagine the suction a vacuum cleaner would have if it was multi-booting Vista, Windows ME, and MS-DOS 4.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But if it ran Linux, would it still suck?
Wait a minute...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, you know, buy a competitor's product instead that already does what you want and save yourself the time.
Finally, a use for the patent system. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Patent trolls make the headlines on slashdot, but the vast majority of patent actions are like
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I tend to agree but then I have not seen the patents yet. Hardware patents I feel are fine for the most part. It is stupid software patents that get to me.
The question is what did they patent. I mean is a two screen device going to be patentable? Couldn't you claim the Nintendo DS as prior art since people have used it as a book reader?
As I said I have not read the patents so I am not sure where I stand on this but yes it could be a good use for patent law.
Buy him out, boys... (Score:2)
I'm shocked... simply shocked that a large company would ever screw over a small player like this. God knows I can't think of anything like this happening before. Well, not for the last few minutes, at least.
This is why we can't have nice things. (Score:5, Insightful)
This case actually may be as legitimate as they come. Seriously, if these guys had NDAs and B&N pulled a Microsoft on them, they have my sympathy-- though this was the obvious way to make a new e-reader, these days. Linux, and now Android linux, are the obvious choices for the OS on any consumer device these days. You'd have to be morons not to have seen that (for Linux, ~6 years ago-- sorry Palm, too late; for Android, basically on announcement).
But in general, every new tech product or service that comes out in the US seems to be hit by lawsuits as soon as it appears it will be successful. At the very least this reduces competition and increases prices. It's also a huge boon to countries which don't give a rat's ass about IP (see China). We're killing ourselves. The US has become a terrible environment for innovation.
Could it be? (Score:2)
Could this actually be the copyright law protecting the Inventors/Developers from a deep pocketed infringer? I'll reserve judgement, but if copyright law actually HELPS the people who put in the hard work.... wow.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It has nothing whatever to do with copyrights. It has to do with patents and trade secrets.
These patents will run out in twenty years. If it were copyrights you'd be dead before they ran out.
trade secrets (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The dual screens of the Nintendo DS does come to mind, but the biggest "duh" is from, of course, paper books.
Dual Screens for an e-reader? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dual Screens for an e-reader? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah (Score:5, Funny)
So what good is a hook to a nook, if the nook makes cannot read the future.
They can not do a cookbook on a nook, since they just got the hook. (apologies).
Re:Ah (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm currently submitting a patent application for the use of a Zans to open cans.
Sigh (Score:4, Informative)
The word patent means open or visible. Honours in England are granted by "letters patent" which are sealed in an open, i.e. readable, form. The meaning carries through into law; something can be a trade secret or patented but not both.
So how their patents, which they shared with a) B&N and b) every literate person in the world, can be a secret is a mystery to me.
What's patentable? (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, we all want to support the underdog here. I know I do.
But seriously, what new, patentable ideas, do you need in an eBook? Make a computer (covered by existing patents), give it an e-paper screen (existing patents) an input device (touch screen, keyboard, rollerball, touchpad - all existing patents), storage (existing patents), OS (existing patents) and some applications (most notably, an eBook reader - existing patents).
I know people patent all kinds of obvious ideas, but I can't for the life of me see any novel ideas that need solving, cobbling together existing components into an eBook.
I read the court filing (Score:5, Informative)
... has been working with major book stores, newspapers and publishers over the last 2 years, sharing the vision and the capabilities of the dual screen device.
So I contact Spring Design rep and asked a simple question (this was about 1 hr before my T-Mobile G1 went bye bye for the evening). I asked "Did you have any contact with BN about your device prior to the release of the Nook?"
/. is should I post the PDF briefing on wikileak.org? There is nothing that says I cannot and it should be available via open records request to the court it was filed in (Northern District of California, San Jose Division). Only thing is it is marked copy and has a series of numbers on it that could linked to the version e-mailed to me. I do not want to hurt Spring Design's case, but I do want to get inform out there.
Woman explained she was not speaking on behalf of company, but when I pressed she said that the simple answer was "yes", but the best way to understand was to read to court filing. I was then able to get her to e-mail the court filing to me. Social engineering at it's finest.
It blew my mind it documents how Spring Design was contacted by Phil Baker (A strategy and development consultant for BN) back in February of this year after the Kindle 2 was released. Not hard to prove call or e-mail, it then includes NDA that was signed by BN prior to meeting with Spring Design, and that pretty much seals the deal, as it has non-compete and nondisclosure sections BN walked right over. Then outlines various meetings, conf calls, e-mails, power points, etc. that continued while Spring Design was led to believe BN would be partnering to use their device.
The really brazen part is it went as high as the CFO of BN and that as late aa 10/1/09 BN was meeting with Spring Design's CEO supposedly over partnering deal, but they still needed to know this and that about how ALEX device worked.
Better still is on a press call given my Willaim J Lynch at BN, Mr. Lynch who was given various Spring Design's concepts and information, actually refers to product screen benefits exactly as outlined by Spring Design to him. He says on the transcript of call that BN is releasing the first dual screen e-reader, yet e-mail sent by him and included as exhibit shows he was privy to Spring's Design product.
Then there is the helpful advice BN gave Spring Design where BN staff recommended Spring Design not talk to Amazon, because (as BN says) Amazon is the kind of company that is likely to steal Spring Design's proprietary information rather then form a partnership as BN was planning.
So my question to
Re: (Score:2)
They most likely had NDAs set up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The press release (not quoted by TFA) mentions an NDA:
http://egether.com/release/52/ [egether.com]
But its not clear if it was sufficiently restrictive to prevent B&N From developing their own device.
There is probably nothing patentable in the Nook that B&A are not already licensing. The only unique thing about the Nook is two screens. My old Razr had that.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they did; I don't see where TFA says either way.
I'm not too familiar with trade secret law. My understanding is that you have to try to protect a trade secret for it to remain protected; so if they didn't get an agreement first, I'd have to guess they'd be out of luck.
I'm a little confused, in that TFS says (1) that this is a trade secret issue, but (2) that there are patents in place. I suppose that could mean that B&N avoided implementing the patents but still copied elements of the original
Re:order of things... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's sometimes extremely hard to get a large corporation to look at your prototypes, much less sign an NDA before you walk through the door. Be it computer software, hardware, or the new mousetrap, being the little guy trying to find a mega-distributor sometimes comes with unanticipated risks.
You have to be careful not to fall into the trap of blaming the victim. Sometimes you make a showing on good faith, and by the time you realize the empty promises of a partnership are just that, you've already shown too much.
Parent
Re:order of things... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's several possible scenarios here.
Spring: We've got this neat thing you want to see. Sign this NDA!
B&N: We're working on something similar, but we'd like to see yours to see if we can work together (signs)
Spring: We've got a signed NDA that covers something you're going to be producing. See you in court, suckers!
Spring: We've got this neat thing you want to see. Sign this NDA!
B&N: We're working on something similar, and we'd like to see yours to see if we can work together, but since we've got a project going we won't sign the NDA.
Spring: Well, okay. This is what we've got so far.
B&N: Ha ha! Now we've got your secrets.
Spring: That's our work that you're going to be using.
B&N: So sue us!
Spring: We've got this neat thing you want to see. Sign this NDA!
B&N: We're working on something similar, but we'd like to see yours to see if we can work together (signs)
Spring: Now that we've got the NDA, here's what we've got so far.
B&N: Ha ha! Now we've got your secrets, and since we have this research project going we can lie about where we got our ideas!
Spring: We'll sue!
All of these are plausible; it's also possible that it's a genuine misunderstanding, and Spring had reason to think B&N took things that they'd actually come up with independently.
I'm not blaming anybody without more information.
Parent
History repeats itself.. sort of (Score:4, Insightful)
Xerox PARC: So we invented this really handy user input device, want to see?
Apple: Sure!
Xerox: Promise you'll license it from us?
Apple: Of course!
Always always always get the NDA's and License Agreements signed before you show the goods off.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
XEROX PARC gave Apple full reign to implement anything they saw, and Apple Engineers had open access to PARC, making several visits.
PARC was not charged by XEROX to bring products to market.
When Apple decided to implement ideas first seen at PARC, in particular GUI first seen in the Lisa and later, Macintosh, they gave XEROX stock as consideration for value received.
XEROX was okay with the deal 100%.
XEROX did try to re-open the deal by suing Apple over GUI implementation, but only after Apple sued Microsoft
Re: (Score:2)
Other than the devices being almost identical in nature there are no similarities, no.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Almost identical in nature? You mean because there is a eink screen over a color touch screen? They look nothing alike to me.
http://www.springdesign.com/resource/jsp/products/Products.jsp [springdesign.com]
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/nook/ [barnesandnoble.com]
I think the screen size and button placement on the Alex looks fairly awkward. Adding an advanced but power-intensive feature that's usually turned off onto something that's more efficient but more limited is a pretty standard design approach. And until this gets some full investigatio
Re:Are you sure this isn't a troll? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmm...maybe they're very similar because they're attempting to solve the same problem. If there is only one good way to do something given the constraints of the problem, why wouldn't you expect the products to be very similar even if independently developed?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If something is patented, then how can an NDA apply to it since it's already, by definition, public?
The article was woefully lacking in details, but I'm guessing the most likely thing going on here is that Spring thought they had an implied contract with B&N.
I have trouble believing that any patent in this area that is less than 3 years old will stand up to scrutiny. Prior art and obviousness are too big a hurdle for anything less than 10 years old or so.