Candidates Sued By Patent Troll For Using Facebook 138
WrongSizeGlass writes "Ars is reporting that the 'inventor' of the concept of 'providing individual online presences for each of a plurality of members of a group of members,' claims that four million Facebook business account holders, including at least three major presidential candidates, are guilty of infringing his patent. He's suing Facebook for infringing on his patent as well as the three candidates. A Patent Office examiner rejected the patent claims, but the rejections have been appealed."
Hurray! (Score:1)
Maybe now eliminating software patents will gain support?
Or will they try to use patents to silence their political opposition?
Re:Hurray! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hurray! (Score:5, Informative)
Suing without a patent in hand has got to be a pretty risky business model.
Rejected is rejected till its accepted. And its not going to be accepted. Prior art goes way back to CompuServe days, well before his 1995 filing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hurray! (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, this fellow seems interesting. Having read into a few articles, I saw this interesting snippet:
Prior to law school, Weyer was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Lesotho and now works as a volunteer engineer in Antarctic expeditions.
and this:
In an earlier case Weyer sued Network Solutions and Register.com for violating his patent on the selection of an e-mail address based on a domain name. He has also sued Harley Davidson, Bosch, and MySpace. Those cases have all settled.
It seems more like this guy is fraking the system over to allow him the freedom to go out and make a difference. You know, if I had a way to pick the pockets of fat cats while giving me the time to spend volunteering in third world countries or doing explorative expeditions - I just might.
Re:Hurray! (Score:5, Funny)
It seems more like this guy is fraking the system over to allow him the freedom to go out and make a difference. You know, if I had a way to pick the pockets of fat cats while giving me the time to spend volunteering in third world countries or doing explorative expeditions - I just might.
That's a rather ugly parasite, if true. I see it as doing a lot of harm in order to practice token charity. Isn't the eighth circle of Hell reserved for that crap?
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno; is it bad to steal money from evil people who've gotten that money in unethical ways (like by stealing it from other people)? That list of companies he's sued isn't exactly a list of fine, upstanding companies that make the world a better place, with the possible exception of Bosch. In fact, if he managed to squeeze any money out of MySpace he should get an award.
Re: (Score:3)
is it bad to steal money from evil people who've gotten that money in unethical ways (like by stealing it from other people)?
I think so actually. But let's take this a step further. How do you know that the money was obtained unethically? What process do you use to make sure that theft only occurs from people who have obtained such money unethically?
Humans, especially the kind who steal, often have all sorts of rationalizations for why they do things. And a primary one is to rationalize after the fact that the victim didn't deserve the money or property of value.
This guy is potentially even worse. He's doing good. So it do
Re: (Score:2)
If you're implying the Holocaust, then that in turn implies that everyone in Germany knew about it, which is ridiculous.
Doesn't matter. Someone came up with the "final solution" and thought it was a great idea to kill millions of people for a slight advantage. The average German citizen doesn't have to know anything for that to happen and it, of course, did happen.
But hey, these days Nazi is just like playdough for evil stuff
And sometimes those comparisons are even appropriate as in this case. Hence, why I made the comparison.
But a good example of said "rationalization" would be the US. Starting with the mass destruction of the German cities, two atomic bombs over Japan, and the appaling track record that followed through, from South America to Vietnam to the Middle East. There was always a goood reason to kill all those people right?
The difference is that if what were claimed to be at stake actually were at stake, then most people would have carried through those acts. For example, a lot of p
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well in the case of Facebook at least, we don't have to worry about that as it's free for users.
As for funding the courts and patent office, first I thought the USPTO was self-funded by its fees, and second he's no more a parasite than all the other patent trolls out there, including all kinds of big companies like MS, Amazon, Apple, etc.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well in the case of Facebook at least, we don't have to worry about that as it's free for users.
As for funding the courts and patent office, first I thought the USPTO was self-funded by its fees, and second he's no more a parasite than all the other patent trolls out there, including all kinds of big companies like MS, Amazon, Apple, etc.
If there is a broken system that is being used by patent trolls to extort money off dubious inventions doesn't it make sense for large companies to file their own patents to protect themselves?
If people then profit from using those patents without obtaining some sort of agreement from the company then wouldn't it show a lack of due diligence in corporate governance if they didn't seek legal redress?
It appears that you are using the pejorative term 'evil' to describe these companies based on the populist, il
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the idea is that if an evildoer just screws over other evildoers, it's really not that big a deal. It's like when violent criminals kill each other rather than attack innocent people; people just don't care that much when one thug kills another one over some drug deal gone bad or whatever. But when they invade someone's home, rape the wife and daughter and burn the family to death, then people get upset.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. You don't need to get patents like the one-click patent to protect your business. In fact you don't need any patents at all for obvious "inventions", you just need to document them so you can easily prove you have prior art in case some patent troll tries to sue you for something you came up with on your own.
Re: (Score:1)
Myspace has money?
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, it's just like Radio Shack. They have money and continue to operate, and no one has the slightest clue how they do it.
Re:Hurray! (Score:4)
Re:Hurray! (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't the eighth circle of Hell reserved for that crap?
No, that would be for the dev teams of Windows ME and Vista.
Re: (Score:2)
...You know, if I had a way to pick the pockets of fat cats while giving me the time to spend volunteering in third world countries or doing explorative expeditions - I just might.
Oh, here we go with the fat cat bashing. [snpp.com]
Well, what do you expect? These yokels are pure Baltic Avenue. Heh-heh. [looks at watch] Uh-oh! I'm late for the Short Line Railroad!
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't, because it's still immoral. Everyday people use Bosch tools and parts, and ride Harleys... you're indirectly giving them the finger, too. When I think of immoral "fat cat" companies, Bosch and Harley-Davidson don't usually come to mind. Harley runs a non-profit foundation and the Bosch brand is actually owned by a pr
Re: (Score:1)
It seems more like this guy is fraking the system over to allow him the freedom to go out and make a difference. You know, if I had a way to pick the pockets of fat cats while giving me the time to spend volunteering in third world countries or doing explorative expeditions - I just might.
Seems you are saying the ends justify the means. That is not a philosophy I would espouse.
Re: (Score:1)
It seems more like this guy is fraking the system over to allow him the freedom to go out and make a difference. You know, if I had a way to pick the pockets of fat cats while giving me the time to spend volunteering in third world countries or doing explorative expeditions - I just might.
Even neglecting the fact the guy is trying to troll without a patent to sue EVERY CORPORATION ON THE INTERNET - that's actually more despicable than Facebook in my opinion (and not much makes it that low). The guy is a thief, he attempts to steal from the rich and give, not just to the poor, but to the poor in countries with technology so backwards they have little to no hope to make a contribution to the rest of Humanity within the foreseeable future. The only difference this sick bastard is making is to
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he'll also patent that business model.
Re:Hurray! (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO sued with a bunch of printouts and a complete inability to point out the offending code.
Re: (Score:1)
SCO sued with a bunch of printouts and a complete inability to point out the offending code.
But they sued over copyright, not patents.
Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it was both in the beginning, but the patent claims dropped out fairly early on.
Of course they didn't even have printouts in hand when they started - that was what the yearlong battle over giving them access to IBM's entire CVS repository for AIX was about.
Re:Hurray! (Score:4, Interesting)
I for one hope this rejection is overturned. This patent is no less valid than countless other business method patents or software patents, such as the one-click patent, and prior art is irrelevant, as again, countless other patents have prior art yet are approved by the USPTO. This patent needs to be approved so this guy can get busy suing the Presidential candidates and lots of other politicians, and maybe then we'll finally have some real reform of the patent system.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Prior art goes way back to CompuServe days, well before his 1995 filing.
Unlikely, considering his claims require URLs, and they were only invented in 1994.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
1995 filing? Maybe I'm missing something, but the US Patent Office site says he filed January 15, 2007: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/7644122
If this is true, then he's suing Facebook (launched in February 2004), for doing something for 3 years before he filed his (not yet accepted) patent. This patent troll isn't just stupid, he's idiotic!
Re: (Score:3)
As long as WE are claiming SOFTWARE as the reason patents should be invalid, then we will NOT be stopping the REAL reason MOST patents should be invalid, which is that they are STUPID ... lacking any genuine INNOVATION.
Re:Hurray! (Score:5, Funny)
WE SOFTWARE NOT REAL MOST STUPID INNOVATION
A-ha! I found your secret code. I think you're trying to say we are some sort of software simulation...
Re: (Score:2)
> Except it's not really a software patent, is it? It's really just an idiotic patent, and looks like
Uh, first you say it's not really a software patent, and then you say it's really just a software patent.
As far as rejection goes... he simply needs to resubmit, this time adding the phrase, "on a mobile device".
Re: (Score:2)
The new McCain-Feingold (Score:2)
This is horrible! This makes patents look like the best thing to come along since the McCain-Feingold Act! Someone who can tell politicians to sit down and shut up, and legally enforce that?
This could start a new era of rule by patent! The sky will fall and there will be anarchy in the streets!
Until... I sue rioters because I hold the patent on anarchy for large groups in public locations for the purpose of civil unrest but not gathered for a particular reason, Patent #828238271238414235
Is this one in East Texas? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that East Texas has finally started rejecting patent troll claims, maybe Texas justice will take hold and they'll clean the gene pool a little by just SHOOTING idiots like this on their way out of court.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Is this one in East Texas? (Score:5, Funny)
Nope, don't move here. I can't even escape to Arizona because California took my car as tax money.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you trying to dissuade people from moving there to reduce competition for yourself, or just trolling? There's tons of tech jobs in California; I get calls from recruiters just about every day trying to get me to move to the Bay Area. There's surfing on the southern California beaches; I've never seen anyone try to surf at Virginia Beach or Nag's Head. And as for gays, California passed Prop 8, so apparently there's a bunch of homophobes there that can be mobilized to go to the polls.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never seen anyone try to surf at Virginia Beach or Nag's Head.
Oh, people try to surf here - heh. Of course, the East Coast Surfing Championships [surfecsc.com] have been held here in Va Beach every August (or so) for about 50 years...
Re: (Score:3)
The best thing about California is that people who live there never make sarcastic comments that sail right over people's heads.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you trying to dissuade people from moving there to reduce competition for yourself, or just trolling?
woooooOOOOOSH!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Round up all the people on California? Too much work. Detonate a couple of well placed explosives along a fault line, and you can get all those troublemakers to just slide right off into the Pacific instead. When that happens, that'll be the day I go back to Annandale.
Re: (Score:1)
And you have to pay a $1,000 fine for playing Frisbee or football on the beach.
bad information: See: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/football-and-frisbee-beach-furor-la-county-reels.html [latimes.com]
I'll settle (Score:5, Funny)
My royalty payment is in an envelope, just behind my SUV [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I've patented paying royalties, so you now owe me as well!
Re: (Score:2)
My royalty payment is in an envelope, just behind my SUV [slashdot.org].
In Suviet Union, envelops pay you - in your royal behind.
rejections appeals? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I tried that with the girls in high school -- it never worked.
Who has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the mother or the best friend?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you just redirected commentary on patent trolls to look like something from the Jerry Springer show. On second thought, the antics of patent trolls rival anything I've ever seen on Springer, so yeah, never mind.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Her sister, actually, hence why it was damn difficult to continue dating.. I overruled her sister.. eventually. Thanks for asking.
In relation to the article, your question provides an apt example of why the American system is so broken... an appropriate authority should be in place to determine a correct path - in particular for appeals - and where the party doing so has a personal interest in the outcome.. the outcome is unlikely to be fair and equitable.
Re: (Score:1)
Crying isn't appealing
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, dumbass. Patents are broke because this guy had his rejected and he's still suing for patent infringement anyway.
Everybody Just Calm Down (Score:4, Insightful)
Everybody calm down. Even if this is appealed it will be struck down for the useless crap it is. The appeals process is normal, and the "inventor" has a very real financial incentive to appeal. But keep in mind the patent examiner has lready struck it down, so it's not an actionable patent yet, and will definitely never be.
Re:Everybody Just Calm Down (Score:5, Informative)
Everybody calm down. Even if this is appealed it will be struck down for the useless crap it is. The appeals process is normal, and the "inventor" has a very real financial incentive to appeal. But keep in mind the patent examiner has lready struck it down, so it's not an actionable patent yet, and will definitely never be.
No the summary and article are bad. This actually produced an issued patent, # 7,644,122 [uspto.gov] (which issued in 2010). But the patent is now under inter partes reexamination (# 95/001,411; you can look up that application number in Public PAIR [uspto.gov]), and that reexamination of the patent has resulted in all claims rejected. The right of appeal notice (it's not exactly a final rejection; inter partes reexamination works a little differently than ex parte prosecution) is under appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. It may take awhile to get a decision though given the backlog at the Board.
When that is done, there is an appeal route to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. When the proceeding and all of the litigation is complete, the Office will issue a reexamination certificate, which would cancel all of the claims (if the rejections of record hold up).
Technically there's nothing stopping the patent owner from suing someone else in federal court, but such litigation would surely get stayed in light of the reexamination in the USPTO.
Re: (Score:2)
The claims of that older patent are:
1. A method for assigning URL's and e-mail addresses to members of a group comprising the steps of: assigning each member of said group a URL of the form "name.subdomain.domain"; and assigning each member of said group an e-mail address of the form "nam
Re: (Score:3)
next we work on getting patents like this rejected on application, rather than when it's involved in a costly lawsuit...
Re: (Score:2)
It's is total garbage. It's a shame crap like this is allowed to cost the defendants even a bit of time and money. The courts should be able to shoot crap like this down before the defendants even have to hear about it.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the USPTO shouldn't issue these shitty patents in the first place. I hope they change their decision and un-reject this patent, so it can go to court. The only way we're going to get reform of the USPTO is if the wrong politician gets burned by their antics, otherwise they'll keep inflicting us with this BS.
Re:Everybody Just Calm Down (Score:5, Insightful)
He is hoping that it won't be struck down before Facebook's IPO and that Facebook might decide that it would be prudent to keep their IPO paperwork clean of pending patent litigation by paying him some money to go away (AKA "settling the case").
Nice IPO you have there, it would be a shame if you lost a few $B on the IPO because of a little lawsuit, wouldn't it?
Much better sources at Patently-O (Score:5, Informative)
Political Candidates Sued for Patent Infringement [patentlyo.com]
Complaint [patentlyo.com]
P.S. And no it's not in East Texas; it's Central District California.
Re:Much better sources at Patently-O (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is the plaintiff's website [everymd.com].
Golly, I haven't seen a website using frameset/frame since 2000.
This page uses frames, but your browser doesn't support them.
Joking aside, there's this noteworthy paragraph from their February 21, 2012 [everymd.com] news release:
According to EveryMD's attorney Frank Weyer, the timing of Facebook's IPO Prospectus could not have been better. "Earlier in the litigation, we had offered our patent to Facebook for a minimal fee, representing a one-time fee of less than $.02 per Facebook member at the time--an almost negligible amount given the vast sums of money that Facebook intends to make off its users," says Weyer. "Instead, Facebook rejected that offer and tried to overwhelm us with their team of high-priced attorneys. We are now pleased that Facebook did not take us up on our earlier offer. Thanks to Facebook's IPO prospectus, we realize our earlier offer was greatly undervalued. It will now take a substantially higher sum to resolve this ongoing patent dispute."
Re: (Score:2)
why don't they sue all bbs forums on the planet..
Four candidates. (Score:2)
Ahem. Four candidates.
Paul
Romney
Santorum
oh
and Gingrich. Everyone forgets him.
Re: (Score:1)
It's one candidate and a bunch of unelectable lunatics.
Re: (Score:3)
But Santorum is a lunatic and a corporate whore. I could show you a Venn diagram with lunatic and shill circles in it that all the candidates fit into, makes it easy to visualize. And since it's displaying a Venn diagram on the web, that is of course a patentable advance.
Re:Venn diagram on the web (Score:2)
xkcd probably has prior art on that kind of thing!
Can we say sanctions? (Score:2)
So this guy is suing for patent infringement over a patent HE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE? How is this not instantly thrown out and the lawyers fined a hefty sum for this stupidity?
Excellent! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
how is that working with the SuperPACs? (Score:2)
Even after the PacMen have gone batshit deranged on the corporations-have-Constitutional-rights-to-buy-elections-too Republican candidates, not a single candidate has changed his mind about their legality. Their only response is "We need more money for ours".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My Mexican jumping bean died, and it's ALL NEWT'S FAULT! I'm filing papers and suing him 20 quadrillion dollars!!!
YES!!!!! (Score:1)
Re:YES!!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is a good way to get it fixed. Contact the candidates involved in the lawsuit. Encourage them to take the matter seriously and to look into the abuses of the patent system. Use Righthaven as an example of a Patent Troll.
We all know that a vast majority of our representation in the government is technologically ignorant. They probably don't know that this kind of stuff is a real and serious problem; they likely see this lawsuit as some crazy on-off event.
It's not. Contact these people. Make sure they understand.
Re: (Score:2)
RightHaven wasn't a patent troll.
God. Sometime slashdotters are so ignorant it's really sad.
LOL (Score:1)
I'd laugh out load on this, but I might be infringing someone else's patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a Troll (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why he's certainly never going to profit from this move. NPE patent trolls survive only because they can't be destroyed with a coutersuit, when the larger company finds something in their patent pool that applies well enough to launch the suit. The proper trolls have no product that can be infringing, making them immune to that fear. The minute this guy gets any real traction, he's going to be countersued into oblivion. You can't play something almost like the patent troll game but while having a
Re: (Score:1)
Around what patent? The patent office rejected the patent claims. There is no patent.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a patent troll (Score:2)
The lawsuit was filed by Weyer's company EVERYMD. That company provides communications services to over 300,000 medical doctors.
But I suppose "Small company fights uphill battle against Facebook over willful infringement of their patents" doesn't make as good a headline.
Re:Not a patent troll (Score:4, Interesting)
How about "small company temporarily patents the obvious and loses a lot of money to lawyers" instead then? That's where this is going; the fact that they do have a product just means they can be counter-sued to death, a problem true patent trolls are immune to.
Can't be sympathetic for the small company when it's yet another variation on the " but on the web now!" patent nonsense. The idea that this was novel is 2007 makes the one-click ordering patent look like genius innovation; at least that hadn't been going on for a decade, all over the world, by the time of filing. I had a database-backed web site communicating among groups of people (the various divisions of my employer being one set) with an e-mail to FAX gateway in 1995. It was new then, but even at that point I considered it an obvious step, once the infrastructure was available.
Re: (Score:2)
How about "small company temporarily patents the obvious and loses a lot of money to lawyers" instead then? That's where this is going; the fact that they do have a product just means they can be counter-sued to death, a problem true patent trolls are immune to.
Can't be sympathetic for the small company when it's yet another variation on the " but on the web now!" patent nonsense. The idea that this was novel is 2007 makes the one-click ordering patent look like genius innovation; at least that hadn't been going on for a decade, all over the world, by the time of filing.
Unlikely, since the time of filing was 1996, and the claims include URLs, which were only invented in 1995.
I had a database-backed web site communicating among groups of people (the various divisions of my employer being one set) with an e-mail to FAX gateway in 1995. It was new then, but even at that point I considered it an obvious step, once the infrastructure was available.
Maybe you should've talked to a patent attorney rather than essentially representing yourself and deciding you had nothing.
More Like That (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As more candidates get burned by IP issues, they ARE going to wake up to how bad the system has become. Since it affects them individually, you know they're going to want to fix the system. Mostly so they can use whatever they want royalty-free. Romney and Newt both have been burned by copyright issues in this season. If a multi-million-dollar presidential candidate can't get this shit right, you think an average Joe has any chance? So yeah, keep picking on the candidates. We'll see how long those pesky laws remain on the books...
I seem to remember that when Jackson Browne sued John McCain for copyright violation over McCain's use of "Running On Empty", McCain's first response was to propose legislation exempting political ads from copyright law (although a quick google search just shows lots of results on him losing the fight with Browne and settling out of court.) So my suspicion is that we'd see the same thing: politicians would exempt themselves but leave the rest of us in the same situation we're currently in.
Man bites what? (Score:3)
Re:Ron Paul FTW! (Score:4, Informative)
From the summary:
... claims that four million Facebook business account holders, including at least three major presidential candidates, are guilty of infringing his patent. He's suing Facebook for infringing on his patent as well as the three candidates.
This particular usage is simply saying that they are referring to the same three candidates that were mentioned in the previous sentence, not that they're necessarily more legit than any other candidates or anything like that.
get over it for once (Score:1)
Your favorite candidate has no chance of winning the one poll that matters, and he never will, thanks to his own history. And the fact that everybody knows this, does not mean there is some big Conspiracy to Keep Your Man Down. He did it to himself; the only thing everyone else is doing to him is telling the truth. It's why he refuses to do most campaign interviews: he knows he'll be called to account for his past actions.
He's no victim. Stop with the histrionics.
Re: (Score:2)
Parent Case Text CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS This patent application is a continuation of pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/747,881 entitled "Method, apparatus and business system for online communications with online and offline recipients," filed Dec. 29, 2003, now abandoned which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/447,755 entitled "Method, apparatus and business system for online communications with online and offline recipients," filed Nov. 23, 1999, issued Dec. 30, 2003 as U.S. Pat. No. 6,671,714.
The "priority date" of Nov. 23, 1999 was also mentioned in their complaint.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Santorum capaign is already familiar with fighting against bowel movement issues [urbandictionary.com].