Martha Stewart Out To Exterminate Patent Troll Lodsys 150
McGruber writes "Gigaom's Jeff John Roberts reports that Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (MSLO) has filed a lawsuit against Lodsys, a shell company that gained infamy two years ago by launching a wave of legal threats against small app makers, demanding they pay for using basic internet technology like in-app purchases or feedback surveys. In the complaint filed this week in federal court in Wisconsin, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia asked a judge to declare that four magazine iPad apps are not infringing Lodsys' patents, and that the patents are invalid because the so-called inventions are not new. The complaint explained how Lodsys invited the company to 'take advantage of our program' by buying licenses at $5,000 apiece. It also calls the Wisconsin court's attention to Lodsys' involvement in more than 150 Texas lawsuits. In choosing to sue Lodsys and hopefully crush its patents, Martha Stewart is choosing a far more expensive option than simply paying Lodsys to go away."
...and suddenly (Score:5, Insightful)
....out of nowhere I have a heck of a lot more respect for Martha Stewart.
It's like MAGIC!
Re:...and suddenly (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing about Martha, she isn't about to take any crap off anyone. I think these assholes tried to shake down the wrong woman.
Re:...and suddenly (Score:5, Funny)
"One thing about Martha, she isn't about to take any crap off anyone"
She may not be taking the crap off anyone herself, but she's certainly willing to help.
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Martha-Stewart-Living-Wayland-Double-Post-Toilet-Paper-Holder-in-Brushed-Nickel-AL-CLSPH-21/202761287#.UkYem0DE3_o [homedepot.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing about Martha, she isn't about to take any crap off anyone.
I doubt she's even aware. This is the company, not the person.
Re:...and suddenly (Score:5, Insightful)
How often does a company choose the greater loss to make a point without approval from the top? I'm sure, at the least, she's aware of the situation.
HQ approval (Score:4, Insightful)
You make a good point about the approval from the top, however calculating the 'greater loss' can be complex, especially if you're considering long term. Sort of like how many/most companies today will fight 'frivolous' lawsuits to the hilt - it's more expensive in the short term, against that litigator, yes, but in the long run if you're seen as a target you face so many more lawsuits it's actually cheaper to fight.
Re:HQ approval (Score:4, Insightful)
Correct. Martha is not one of the typical fly-in CEOs that's there for 3 quarters and throws away the long term viability of the company for the quick profit. This is _her_ company.
Re:HQ approval (Score:5, Interesting)
If anyone would like more proof that it is her in charge, give "The Martha Rules" a read.
Alternatively, if you don't give a shit about this but you're starting a small business, give it a read anyway, you'll thank her later.
Re: (Score:2)
I just did a quick google and it seems the only way I'll read it is if it's at the public library. I'll not pay for a pig in a poke. Do you have some quotes from the book?
"The Martha Rules" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of sample content available for free. Just scroll down to "Contents" and browse around. Google [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know that, thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, it is HER NAME.
This isn't some insider swooping into IBM and Yahoo. This enterprise has Martha's name on it. There's bound to be a bit more pride and a sense of ownership in that case.
Re: (Score:1)
When "the top" is arrested, convicted, jailed, and is barred by the SEC from being "the top", it happens a lot.
Do you think JP Morgan's heirs are notified everytime his eponymous bank hires a new employee?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I have a friend who worked for a couple of summers at her greenhouse and farmstand. This is basically minimum wage work at a small sideline business that isn't even supposed to make money so much as slightly offset the cost of having a full time maintenance and landscaping staff on her very large personal home and adjoining estate in Maine.
My friend never directly reported to her, and only "met" her insofar as on a handful of occasions she saw fit to check on things or wanted to have a camera crew shoot som
Re:...and suddenly (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but I can't make heads or tails about what you just wrote. What does "You're reading in" mean? And what does his id have to do with it? Did you mean his ego?
Re:...and suddenly (Score:5, Funny)
One thing about Martha, she isn't about to take any crap off anyone. I think these assholes tried to shake down the wrong woman.
Martha is hard core. She's been to prison and everything. She will probably shiv one or more of them.
Re: (Score:3)
My siblings and I used to joke about Evil Aunt Martha (she's no particular relation, except that all Stewarts are either descended from a 12th-century Scottish king or peasants on the land of his descendents, so we might be distantly related to her husband.)
She's going to shiv Lodsys, and it'll look fabulous when she does, with legal papers that are black and white and red all over, in nice wintery colors.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Martha Stewart ended a thousand year galactic war with her apple dandies. These guys won't even see it coming.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no one expected her apple dandies to be laced with Polonium-210.
Can't wait to see what she hits these guys with.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've always had respect for Martha, yes she may be a bit of an elitist bitch, but she taught a generation of people (women and men) to cook and garden and fix up their houses, and she did it in a way that was accessible. She also paid the price for her arrogance and moved on. If she is willing to fight back against the trolls and stand up to their demands, It's a good thing!
Re:...and suddenly (Score:5, Insightful)
What I admired is how she opted to go to jail and serve out her sentence even though protested it. Yeah, she looks a bit cranky, but that took real backbone.
Re:...and suddenly (Score:5, Funny)
We never did get to see any photographs of her jail cell. I wanted to see how fabulously it was decorated using only prison supplies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is one big problem with trying to engage in a appeal to authority with some random pastry chef.
There is a high probability that Julia would call that French pastry chef an idiot. Surprisingly, she did not have a lot of tolerance for the kind of elitism in French cuisine that makes it expensive or unapproachable.
The word of some random french chef? Less valuable than toilet paper as toilet paper is at least soft.
Re: (Score:3)
who eats french stuff daily?
Er. The French?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Burger King isn't, I hear.
Re: (Score:2)
A French guy being an elitist asshole, imagine that!
They do it better than Martha though, you must admit?
Re:...and suddenly (Score:5, Insightful)
I always had sympathy for her after her jail sentence. She went to jail for a MINOR insider trading case (where they couldn't even prove that, just obstruction of justice), while those who collapsed the economy got off scot free.
Hope her company drives the patent trolls into the ground. And then she decorates the grave with some potpourri warning signs to other trolls or some such.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My understanding is that she went to jail for "lying" to Federal investigators, which is a felony. She said one thing, her stock broker said another. I suspect they wanted to teach her a lesson so they "believed" him and not her and off she went to the fed pen.
They couldn't prove insider trading simply because she wasn't an insider at that company. That is she had no business or employment r
The feds and govt lie to us every day (Score:5, Insightful)
So its ok for the feds to lie to us, for fbi to lie, for Obama to lie, its ok for all politicians to lie to everyone daily.
Hey feds, the sky is red. Arrest me.
All of the SEC is spineless and corrupt and a in cahoots with the corp elite.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Amen. She got busted because she was a successful woman. Not in the club, as George Carlin would say.
Re: (Score:2)
So its ok for the feds to lie to us, for fbi to lie, for Obama to lie, its ok for all politicians to lie to everyone daily.
There's no law against lying unless you're under oath or the cops are asking questions. This isn't about right and wrong, it's about legal and illegal.
That said, Clapper should be in prison for lying to Congress under oath.
Hey feds, the sky is red. Arrest me.
If a cop asks you what color the sky is and you say that, he will.
Re: (Score:2)
Your agenda and methodology are known and don't work effectively anymore.
Framed, because they had to get her for something (Score:3)
"Lying" to a federal investigator. Right.
This was an FBI interview. The only record allowed at an FBI interview are the FBI's notes. You are not allowed any other record. So the record can say whatever they want it to say after the fact.
The fed's started this high profile case against her, for whatever reason, and made a huge media splash. When it turned out that she hadn't actually done anything wrong, they were about to be left looking stupid. Can't have that, can we? So they nailed her on this completely
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
- revised code of Washington, source [seattlepi.com]. Just a sample.
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking funny how I did it and got away with it, then.
Not in the land of the free, mind.
Re: (Score:2)
The fed's started this high profile case against her,
The Fed's what, their greengrocer?
Even if the notes are accurate, what's with prosecuting someone for saying something incorrect?
It's a felony to lie to an investigator during an investigation, that's what. It was a stupid thing for her to do.
You are not under oath
If she were under oath it would have been perjury rather than obstruction of justice. Honestly, people, I'm neither a cop nor a lawyer an I know that. WTF?
Re: (Score:2)
> It's a felony to lie to an investigator during an investigation,
A lie in the moral sense of the term requires intent which is pretty difficult if not impossible to prove. So the entire idea is complete bullshit as the cops are free to lie or simply to disagree. Intent is not required. You can simply be imperfect (not even stupid or evil) and still run afoul of the law.
It's one of those "catch all laws" that really have no business being on the books in the first place. It's something that the authoriti
Re: (Score:2)
A lie in the moral sense of the term requires intent which is pretty difficult if not impossible to prove.
Sometimes, but the jury seemed to think she lied.
It's stupid to talk to a cop period.
Depending on circumstances, yes it is. I would have insisted on having my lawyer present.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I always had sympathy for her after her jail sentence. She went to jail for a MINOR insider trading case (where they couldn't even prove that, just obstruction of justice), while those who collapsed the economy got off scot free.
Hey, but at least we're safer now that Martha has lost the privilege to vote and defend herself with arms.
Seriously, though, we can probably count on one hand the number of people who believe that the system worked for the benefit of society in that case. When department stores pro
Re: (Score:2)
I always had sympathy for her after her jail sentence. She went to jail for a MINOR insider trading case (where they couldn't even prove that, just obstruction of justice)
I have no sympathy for her at all. I met a woman in a bar just the other day who spent six months for obstruction of justice just like the rich bitch. Her crime? Criminal stupidity, a cop asked her name and she made one up. The dumbass had no warrants or anything, I guess she thought it was funny. If a cop asks a question, answer truthfull
Re:...and suddenly (Score:4, Funny)
I think she's got an old shiv she can sharpen up for the fight.
Re: ...and suddenly (Score:5, Funny)
She's probably going to get busted for shorting Lodsys stock right before she sued them.
Re: ...and suddenly (Score:5, Informative)
Re: ...and suddenly (Score:5, Informative)
Interestingly enough, the director of the FBI lied to congress and nothing happened to him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What's wrong with Martha Stewart?
"Shabby Chic"
Re: (Score:2)
Martha hates trolls (Score:1)
And that's a good thing.
Re:Martha hates trolls (Score:4, Funny)
But loves garden gnomes.
Martha Stewart suing Lodsys? (Score:5, Funny)
It's a *GOOD* thing...
Re: (Score:2)
.....a VERY good thing!
if you want to be rich you got to be a bitch (Score:1)
martha don't fuck around
This really *should* end well! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yay!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It may cost more. But maybe she's also considering the principal of the matter. She could be thinking "this might cost me some money, but those (whatever language older....so nice women use) SOBs shouldn't get away with this". Plus it might give other trolls the idea that going after patents/sueing for bullshit claims may not always end in their favor. Kudos to her!
Re:Don't Mess With Martha (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus it might give other trolls the idea that going after patents/sueing for bullshit claims may not always end in their favor. Kudos to her!
In the bigger picture, it will only make a difference if the people responsible for Lodsys's antics are held personally responsible. Otherwise a troll isn't really going to care if their company goes under as long as they walk away with some money in the meantime.
Re:Don't Mess With Martha (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It may cost more. But maybe she's also considering the principal of the matter.
That's what the GP said when he said "Sure, this one time action costs more than giving in, but it might be cheaper in the long run."
Or did you mean "principle?" If so, you didn't say what you thought you said. I'd think she was more concerned with the interest (the payback) rather than the principal (the cost).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If she gets the patents thrown out, that's good for everyone, rest of us included.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Her and Ice Cube [youtube.com] both!
Re: (Score:1)
Why wouldn't the company, if it saw itself getting close to losing, simply withdraw and sell it's "assets" (patents) to some other shell company and simply start the game all over again under a different entity?
Re: (Score:2)
Another Myhrvold front (Score:5, Informative)
Say what you will about Martha Stewart: ... (Score:1)
... she seems to do the right thing.
Caught for insider trading? Goes to jail and takes it like a man (so to speak).
Unjustified patent lawsuit filed against her? Takes out the trash.
Re: (Score:2)
She got jailed for Obstruction Of Justice(aka we caught you at a dishonesty while investigating you for a non-crime). Whenever you read charges like Obstruction, Wire/Mail Fraud, Consiparcy,... in a federal case then you read about the DoJ being a dick. They ain't got nothing, count on jury stupidity and plea bargains. Whatever DA gets results that way is not fit to run for a higher office since he took a huge dump on what ju
Re: (Score:2)
She got jailed for Obstruction Of Justice(aka we caught you at a dishonesty while investigating you for a non-crime).
They weren't investigating a non-crime, they were investigating her for insider trading which WAS a real crime and it SHOULD be a real crime.
Guess what, if you're being investigated for selling dope when you've never seen dope in your life, lying to the investigator is both illegal and stupid.
I can't understand why so many of you can't understand that.
Re: (Score:2)
Her broker got wind the CEO of another company was selling all of his shares. Neither Stewart nor her broker knew why. These were the facts as accepted by the court. And on that basis they concluded that insider trading laws didn't apply to her actions.
While you ARE entitled to an opinion you should take proper care to know at least a little bit. Otherwise you are an easy mark for populist opinion forming processes. I'm prett
Re: (Score:2)
It was a non crime in the sense that she didn't do it. The obstruction charge is just bullshit. If there was no case there then logically there's nothing to obstruct.
It hands far too much power to enforcement, just like "resisting arrest" and "failing to obey a lawful order".
Re: (Score:2)
It was a non crime in the sense that she didn't do it.
Neither one of us were there. A jury convicted her, who are we to second guess? But I do agree that there are a lot of bullshit charges; my best friend's brother and half of his high school graduating class spent five years in prison on a bullshit charge.
His "crime"? Loaning money to a former classmate who happened to be a dope dealer. The charge was "conspiracy to distribute cocaine." Mike's brother wasn't a dope dealer and never touched the stuff, he
Re: (Score:2)
Don't disagree. It's a matter of record.
Not really. Weren't you told as a toddler that two wrongs don't make a right[1]?
Perhaps that's so long ago that you've forgotten.
[1] while I think revenge has its place, it surely can't be relevant where the victim of the second isn't the perpetrator of the first.
Go Martha gobble... (Score:3, Funny)
Go Martha go-bble, yum, sorry, can't speak with my mouth full. Mouth watering. Delicious. Wow!
Patents need to describe significant inventions (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Patent trolls really bit the wrong organization (Score:5, Interesting)
They went after the National Association of Realtors. [realtor.org] The fifth largest all-time donor to federal politicians since 1989. [opensecrets.org]
When big political donors get upset, politicians will act.
Long-term thinking (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an example of long-term thinking.
People only look at their personal short-term gain, with no thought about the long-term consequences. It's paying the Danegeld [wikipedia.org], nothing less.
I read all the time about this-or-that injustice and oh! the outrage it sparks, but no one wants to do the right thing and fight because it's so hard!
When a cop violates your civil rights, do you take him to court? If no one does, then cops feel free to do whatever they want, and rights violations are everywhere.
When the BSA (business software alliance) demands to search your office without a warrant, when the RIAA offers to settle for less than the court costs, when the border patrol stops and searches your car, or when patent trolls demand license fees, it's all the same: bullies feel free to operate, it's the Danegeld in another form.
If people stood up for their rights and took the bullies to task, there would be a lot less bullying. It would be expensive for the first few people, but in the long run it would be better for everyone. Consider it an investment in your childrens' future: if you fight now, they won't have to fight later.
Next time you read about an injustice, think about what the victim could do to take the bullies to task. Then ask "why didn't they do that?"
Re:Long-term thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
>Next time you read about an injustice, think about what the victim could do to take the bullies to task. Then ask "why didn't they do that?"
They answer is simple. The victim didn't have the financial resources to fight back. Justice in America is strictly pay-for-play.
Re: (Score:3)
Rudyard Kipling got it right:
http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.html [poetryloverspage.com]
[...]
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
[...]
Re: (Score:2)
Your analysis is over-simplistic. For one, losing a battle doesn't necessarily mean losing the war.
Secondly, the money will at some point run out. Then you have to fight anyway.
Finally, it's not a simple matter of defeat or victory. There are victories that are worth it, and ones that aren't [wiktionary.org].
Convince them that even if they do win it'll be the latter and they'll go bother someone else. That doesn't work so well if the struggle is ideologically motivated, but that isn't the scenario here - it's about reso
Re: (Score:3)
Note that there's a reason why trolls like Lodsys only sue small companies or even individuals. You never hear about them
There really ought to be sane patent licensing. (Score:2)
At the heart of the patent licensing issue is the relatively unlimited ability of the patent holder to ask for exhorbitant patent license fees.
To turn that around, the legal design problem is to define a reasonable statutory patent license fee that can reasonably fit with the public purpose of the Constitution's patent clauses.
Taking the F.O.B. wholesale price of any product (such as a cell phone or computer), I think the fair statutory patent license fee is 1.5%. That 1.5% would be shared equally with each
Re: (Score:2)
Why is the the patent license fee so low?
Low? Huh?? $280 for a twenty year monopoly, Copyright costs $35 for a lifetime monopoly (it was $20 when I registered my first copyright on computer programs that are now obsolete). I don't see how the math works with your calculations.
Patents like trademarks (Score:2)
I think it would be interesting if patents were treated a bit more like trademarks in that if you don't defend them you lose them. it may stop a few things from happening;
1. Waiting till a product gets widely accepted and then suing. If you don't sue withing a certain number of years the patent is dead.
2. Picking on the small guys who do not have the money to defend themselves. Require patent holder to sue all patent violators or the patent is dead.
The main issue is would the patent holder know about the in
Patents on a concept (Score:2)
In-app purchases and feedback reviews aren't technologies, they are concepts.
I don't like M.Stewart, but I love M.Stewart (Score:2)
I wonder if... (Score:2)
Only difference is that the Rebels didn't have the Force, R2-D2's data, and the Empire had the smarts to cover up every exhaust port and hole on the Death Star.
Penny wise, pound foolish. (Score:2)
There's an old saying about knowing what's more expensive in the long run. It's "penny wise, pound foolish". Paying this patent troll to go away this time is cheaper than a lawsuit. How much cheaper is the lawsuit, though, than setting a precedent of being pushed around by patent trolls and paying them off?
Re: (Score:2)
For USD $5000, I'll see to it that Martha Stewart won't visit you.
Re: (Score:2)
Federal judges are presidential appointments that can only be impeached by the same congress critters that are feeding from corporate troughs.
Think about this.