Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Patents The Courts

Google Faces Off Against Intellectual Ventures In Landmark Patent Trial 53

Posted by Soulskill
from the clash-of-the-titans dept.
enharmonix writes "Although Google initially invested in Intellectual Ventures, a patent holding firm, the two have since parted ways and are about to face off in court over some technologies used in Motorola (and other) phones. This is an important battle and the timing is significant given Congress's recent interest in patent reform. 'Two of the patents in the upcoming Motorola trial cover inventions by Richard Reisman, U.S. government records show. Through his company, Teleshuttle, Reisman has developed several patent portfolios for various technologies, including an online update service, according to the Teleshuttle website. IV claims that the two Reisman patents cover several of Motorola's older-generation cellphones that have Google Play, a platform for Android smartphone apps. Motorola argues that IV's patents should never have been issued because the inventions were known in the field already."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Faces Off Against Intellectual Ventures In Landmark Patent Trial

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @05:00PM (#46029339)

    1. Buy ink by the barrel

    -or-

    2. Maintain the search engine

    *settles back with popcorn*

  • Which company holds the patent for being a patent troll?

  • by nobuddy (952985) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @05:34PM (#46029661) Homepage Journal

    Google created a monster in their patent troll office, and now that monster is chewing on their door.

    Irony? maybe....

    • I'll never understand the appeal of completely making stuff up, just pulling something out of your butt, then believing it.

      Google a patent troll? You realize Google's basic policy is that they never sue over patents. They eventually filed one case last year. Google has been strongly fighting against patent overreach since AT LEAST 2006. Before that also, but 2006 was the first thing that came up in five second search.

      Why do you think they made Google Patents? Their whole goal has been to make the patent

      • by OneAhead (1495535)
        Say, sir, did you hear that WHOOSHing sound overhead? Could it perchance be that GP was a semi-funny allusion to the fact that Google initially invested in IV, as mentioned in the first sentence of the summary?
    • by OneAhead (1495535)
      Ooh, that terminology is soo 20th century. Google doesn't have offices, Google has labs. Ergo: "Google created a monster in their patent troll lab." Doesn't that sound much better?
  • by Anonymous Coward

    The people behind it have never done anything intellectual in their lives.

  • by Max Hyre (1974) * <mh-slash@@@hyre...net> on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:11PM (#46029955)
    I read TFA, and nowhere does it mention the subjects of the patents in question. What are they claiming? What's the prior art? Without that info this is just a “The trolls are coming! The trolls are coming!” piece of hysteria. Anyone know what it's about? I'm certainly not going to try to figure it out from the patents themselves. My sanity's worth more than that.
    • You are making the mistake of asking for substance. Patent Trolls do not necessarily bring any substance. A lawsuit, at least the initial complaint can be very substance free. These trolls get used to filing substance free filings with the USPTO. They expect the courts to have a similar approval process for lawsuits as the USPTO has for patents. (That is, the USPTO throws patent applications into a large room full of cats with stamps attached to their feet that say "PATENT GRANTED".)

      The complain mig
      • by alvinrod (889928)
        Speaking of things which lack substance, your post is a prime offender. You make claims without support, which in this case turn out to be false as I was able to do some quick searching and found some the patents in question: # 6,557,054 [uspto.gov] and # 6,658,464 [uspto.gov]. I was also able to locate the actual document filed with the court [archive.org] that lists the other four patents.

        You're certainly entitled to your own opinions about the patent system, and while I'm sure I probably would agree with you on several points, your post i
        • I dunno, this sounds like more than just a description of a screen:

          1. An illumination device, comprising:
          a light source, comprising an array of a plurality of light emitting devices;
          an illumination uniformizing means disposed in front of the light source to uniformize a light emitted from the light source, the illumination uniformizing means comprising:
          an incident plane, the light emitted from the light emitting device array is incident therefrom;
          a bottom plane, comprising a scattering pattern the
    • by elwinc (663074) on Tuesday January 21, 2014 @06:32PM (#46030129)
      A more useful article [fosspatents.com] that lists the patent numbers and claims in dispute.
      • by StormReaver (59959) on Wednesday January 22, 2014 @01:08AM (#46032865)

        A more useful article that lists the patent numbers and claims in dispute.

        You linked to a site which specializes in fictional writing. It's like quoting Star Trek as an authority on real faster than light travel. Think of fosspatents as a site that recommends reversing the polarity on the deflector dish to fix legal problems.

  • Congress' changes are-a coming.

It is impossible to travel faster than light, and certainly not desirable, as one's hat keeps blowing off. -- Woody Allen

Working...