Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
IBM Patents The Almighty Buck The Courts The Internet Technology

IBM Wants $167 Million From Groupon Over Alleged Patent Infringement (reuters.com) 64

Posted by BeauHD from the pay-the-piper dept.
On Monday, IBM asked a jury to award the company $167 million in a lawsuit against deals site Groupon for using patented technology without authorization. The patents involve e-commerce technology that had already been licensed to Amazon, Facebook, and Alphabet for between $20 million and $50 million per company. "Most big companies have taken licenses to these patents," IBM's lawyer, John Desmarais, said. "Groupon has not. The new kid on the block refuses to take responsibility for using these inventions." Reuters reports: Groupon lawyer J. David Hadden argued that IBM was overreading the scope of its patents and claiming ownership of building blocks of the internet. "A key question for you in this case is whether these patents cover the world wide web," Hadden told jurors. "They do not and that is because IBM did not invent the world wide web."

An IBM executive is expected to testify during the two-week trial about licensing deals with technology companies like Amazon and Google, providing a rare glimpse into IBM's efforts to derive revenue from its large patent portfolio. The Armonk, New York-based company invests heavily in research and development and has secured more U.S. patents than any other company for the past 25 years.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Wants $167 Million From Groupon Over Alleged Patent Infringement More

IBM Wants $167 Million From Groupon Over Alleged Patent Infringement

Comments Filter:

  • Software Patents? (Score:5, Informative)

    by youngone ( 975102 ) on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @07:38PM (#56971308)
    I hope IBM have their arse handed to them (but they probably won't).

    An IBM executive is expected to testify during the two-week trial about licensing deals with technology companies like Amazon and Google...

    Which will prove only that Google and Amazon didn't challenge the stupid patents, not that they are valid.
    I'm sure Groupon's counsel will have thought of that though.

    • The great game. Remember who were the good guys in SCO vs the universe?

    • They're not stupid. (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I hope IBM have their arse handed to them (but they probably won't).

      An IBM executive is expected to testify during the two-week trial about licensing deals with technology companies like Amazon and Google...

      Which will prove only that Google and Amazon didn't challenge the stupid patents, not that they are valid.

      I'm sure Groupon's counsel will have thought of that though.

      IBM has had an incredible R&D team for decades and decades. They research real technology.

      Groupon is just another dipshit web based retail type of company that tries to pass its self off as a tech company to get stupid people to value it more than it should be. It's done nothing worthy of being called technology. Like Uber and Lyft.

      I see it time and time again, some Silly Valley company exclaims that they've done something innovative and it was really done many years ago.

      I swear to my personal God, I

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Luthair ( 847766 )

        IBM has had an incredible R&D team for decades and decades. They research real technology.

        I agree, but from the article absent proper detail it doesn't sound like this patent suit involves any of it.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 )
          Given that Facebook, Amazon, and Alphabet dropped 8 figures to license the patent, there's a good chance it's solid enough to survive at least $20-$30 million of legal challenges - meaning, it's probably pretty solid.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Derivative patent troll (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        No they're a derivative patent troll. None of their patents constitute a commercial market, they simply look at what's happening and patent around it.

        "IBM also said it patented so-called “single sign on” technology that allows consumers to log in to a retailer’s website with their Facebook or Google account. "

        This case in point.

        Worlds biggest patent troll, hasn't innovated since the 1950's.

    • Unlikely. (Score:5, Informative)

      by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <[slashdot] [at] [keirstead.org]> on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @08:30PM (#56971494)

      IBM is the furthest thing in the world from a patent troll.

      Need I remind....

      - IBM has had the record of the most patents per year for the past 25 years, in a row

      - IBM grants free access to its entire patent portfolio (again, the world's largest - see above) to initiatives like The Linux Foundation and OASIS Standards.

      - IBM has used its massive patent warchest to act in the interests of Open Source and Linux many, many, many times over the years.

      - IBM allowed Google to purchase some of their patents to aid in their fight against Oracle's ridiculousness that would have killed all open source Java as well as Android

      In general... IBM spends a massive amount of money on R&D and for the most part, their patents are real inventions. They then either license those patents on reasonable terms to others, or hold them as defense against other patent trolls, or use them to help open technology movements.

      • You make some excellent points about IBM, and they are one of the better players.
        I have not forgotten about SCO and all that nonsense, but I am of the view that any software patent should be invalidated.
        • In general, software patents SHOULD be invalidated. BUT, IBM has algorithmic and other utility type patents that I suspect Groupon is stepping all over.
      • I don't understand. You say " IBM grants free access to its entire patent portfolio", but Amazon, Facebook, and Alphabet are paying money for something according to the article. Which is it?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by thej1nx ( 763573 )

          Learn to read properly please. They grant the aforesaid free access to initiatives like The Linux Foundation and OASIS Standards, which in turn will not make a profit on those. You seem to confuse that with a free access being granted to entire corporate world.

      • And they also have BS patents. And they're known for showing up at a business who's recently successful and just demanding a payment. They'd reference a dozen patents, and when the wet behind the ears company proves they don't practice those the IBM lawyers present another dozen and point out that they'll just keep doing this can can litigate them all. It doesn't matter whether there is actual infringement.

        I've always heard IBM's patent lawyers referred to as the Nazgul for behaving exactly like that and n

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sootman ( 158191 )

        "... for the most part, their patents are real inventions..."

        IBM (and others) simply patent everything under the sun. From TFA:

        Two of the four patents at issue relate to Prodigy, a late-1980s forerunner to the internet, developed by IBM and others, that describe a system for showing applications and advertisements that reduces server loads.

        IBM also said it patented so-called "single sign on" technology that allows consumers to log in to a retailer's website with their Facebook or Google account.

      • IBM is either prosecuting an obvious patent or not. I they are that is wrong no matter what they do with their other patents.

        We may simultaneously hold the idea that IBM does good things and IBM does bad things and we may react to each position appropriately.

  • Patents Suck (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pubwvj ( 1045960 ) on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @07:40PM (#56971320)

    Patents are a bad idea.
    Multiple people come up with the same ideas.
    Nobody should be given exclusive rights to the ideas.
    Software patents are even worse than other types of patents.
    Time to reform the patent system and ban all patents.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by wizkid ( 13692 )

      Patents don't suck.
      Software patents do suck. Software is mathematical, and should be excluded from patent-ability.

      Hardware patents protect the little guy. For example, the little guy thinks up, designs, builds and starts selling a better widget.

      Without patents, the big company, see's it and copies it, and sells it before the little guy can get off the ground. Patents were originally meant to protect the inventor.

      Patents still work for the hardware and other engineers that design hardware type stuff.

      But f

      • Re:Patents Suck (Score:5, Interesting)

        by pubwvj ( 1045960 ) on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @08:06PM (#56971424)

        I'm an inventor. Believe me, patents suck. The whole system is bad. If people want to make money off their inventions then they should get out there and manufacture, market and sell.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Motard ( 1553251 )

          I'm an inventor. Believe me, patents suck. The whole system is bad. If people want to make money off their inventions then they should get out there and manufacture, market and sell.

          Isn't that what they tried to do before patents?

        • Again, nope. It is far too easy for places like China to simply dump on a market. As such, a patents are needed and actually need to be reinforced against the retailers that bring in criminal knock-offs. Note that BOTH Walmart and Target actually use the laws against inventors. They will both tell you that unless you sell it to them at pretty much costs, they will simply use 1 or more of 7 different Chinese manufacturers to destroy you.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by pubwvj ( 1045960 )

            It's easy for armchair quarterbacks like you to say that but I have actually repeatedly invented things, manufactured them for years with companies I setup to do that, sold my products and made my money that way over the last >40 years. I speak from experience. The patent system is broken and designed for the benefit of big corporations and against inventors. Better to just get rid of the patent system.

      • Re:Patents Suck (Score:5, Informative)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @08:19PM (#56971460)

        Hardware patents protect the little guy.

        Plenty of little guys would disagree.

        Without patents, the big company, see's it and copies it, and sells it before the little guy can get off the ground.

        With patents, the little guy can't afford a patent defense, is drowned in legal expenses, and is counter-sued by the big company for infringing other patents in their defensive patent portfolio.

    • Not all patents. Sometimes they're the only thing keeping brilliant minds like Nikola Tesla's from living in destitution with no means to further explore technology. Certain software that is not obvious to programmers of the day (traveling salesman solution for example) is probably worth a patent as well.
    • I like patents. I license some hardware patents to big guys like Microsoft...
    • Simply stated I agree 100%. Patents need to go. There is no chance of that whilst we're all racing towards globalization + the WTO owns this, not your elected officials.
    • Nope. Killing all patents is a HORRIBLE idea. We need patents for things that take a long time to bring to market. Software patents and business methods do NOT. Those are 2 types of BS patents that need to disappear.
      Another that SHOULD be modified are the drug patents. In particular, if the drug does not TREAT a disease, but instead treats a symptom (i.e. a single treatment vs. on-going yearly use ), we should limit it to 5-10 years. OTOH, if it treats a disease, it will be used a whole lot less, and may

    • Multiple people come up with the same ideas.

      That's why the patent system exists. Not to reward people with exclusivity over ideas, but to encourage the destruction of trade secrets and advance the public domain. If you've got a hundred companies with a hundred engineers each working in secret for a hundred hours to invent the same widget and then keeping it tied up in draconian contracts and NDAs, you've spent 10,000 man-hours. But if you encourage the first guy to invent it to publish details of the widget, in exchange for a time-limited monopoly,

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pubwvj ( 1045960 )

        And that's the problem. Everything is obvious. Put 100 engineers on a problem and they'll come up with a few similar ideas, pretty much the best ideas allowed by societies current state of technology. This should not be protected by patents.

  • Really? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Patent Lover ( 779809 )

    There's still a Groupon to sue?

  • 20 years is reasonable. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WolfgangVL ( 3494585 ) on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @07:53PM (#56971388)

    The length of a US patent is 20 years. I think this is just about right where it is supposed to be. I don't like it, but I see that it is necessary.

    I also like watching giants duke it out in court for the entire 20 years.

    I think there are 2 reforms that need to happen with our patent system here in the states.

    1. Use it or lose it. End patent trolling for good.
    2. Limited applications. Half the reason we have so many dumbass patents (rounded corners, swipe left ect..) is because we allow giant companies to apply for patents en-mass. Apply for 500 frivolous patents a day. if even one gets approved a quarter, you can unleash the lawyers and recoup the cost of all of the failed applications and rent seek for another 20 years. If you can afford huge upfront cost, or already have the lawyers for doing your legit patents, you gotta keep em busy.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by wizkid ( 13692 )

      I think there are 2 reforms that need to happen with our patent system here in the states.

      1. Use it or lose it. End patent trolling for good.
      2. Limited applications. Half the reason we have so many dumbass patents (rounded corners, swipe left ect..) is because we allow giant companies to apply for patents en-mass. Apply for 500 frivolous patents a day. if even one gets approved a quarter, you can unleash the lawyers and recoup the cost of all of the failed applications and rent seek for another 20 years. If you can afford huge upfront cost, or already have the lawyers for doing your legit patents, you gotta keep em busy.

      Well stated. The cost for getting a patent hasn't increased in cost, relative to the economy. It would reduce the frivolous patents, and the funds could be used to hire more patent reviewers to filter out the crap patents.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by brunes69 ( 86786 )

      I can almost guarantee that IBM uses this patent. IBM runs e-commerce sites left right and centre.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Luthair ( 847766 )
      For technology 20-years seems far too long, stop and think about the state of technology and the internet in 1998.

      • For technology 20-years seems far too long, stop and think about the state of technology and the internet in 1998.

        Most patents don't live that long... The USPTO requires you to pay maintenance fees during the life of the patent, and they increase from $1600 to $7400 over that time. Somewhere around half of patents are abandoned without paying that $7400 fee. The ones that are maintained tend to be things like pharmaceuticals, where they're still valuable after 20 years.

  • I'm reminded of a story (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 18, 2018 @07:57PM (#56971396)

    No source, so take with an appropriately sized grain of salt.

    Back in the early days of Sun, IBM came in and said, "You're violating this patent we own. We want you to pay for a license." Sun's engineers sat down, looked at the patent, and went through all the various claims it made, and basically proved that Sun did not violate that patent.

    IBM's response: "We have a portfolio of $BIGNUM patents. You can either pay us for a license, or we will find one that you are violating, and sue."

    Sun folded.

    In the context of computer hardware at the time, IBM was the 200 kg gorilla in the room, and if you didn't have a patent portfolio of your own, you were at their mercy. I don't know if IBM still has the same level of legal clout in this particular area, but I'd not want to be in Groupon's shoes right now. Lawsuit vs patent license... a very tricky situation, especially since IBM could, potentially, drag out dozens of lawsuits over dozens of patents as a form of legal harassment.

  • " ... "A key question for you in this case is whether these patents cover the world wide web," Hadden told jurors. "They do not and that is because IBM did not invent the world wide web." ..."

    The patents could easily 'cover the world wide web' in a general sense while at the same time covering only a subset of it. Nor is Groupon a company whose product 'cover[s] the world wide web', it covers a subset of the world wide web.

    IBM has no need to prove it 'invent[ed] the world wide web', it only has to prove it

  • Mandatory "I am not a professional in any field dealing with IP law but I have common sense, which doesn't always relate to legal stuff" disclaimer.

    I didn't see this in any comments and the article obviously isn't written for people who want to know what patents IBM is claiming infringement upon.

    "Two of the four patents at issue relate to Prodigy, a late-1980s forerunner to the internet, developed by IBM and others, that describe a system for showing applications and advertisements that reduces server loads

  • Quoting the lawyer: Groupon lawyer J. David Hadden argued that IBM was overreading the scope of its patents and claiming ownership of building blocks of the internet. "A key question for you in this case is whether these patents cover the world wide web," Hadden told jurors. "They do not and that is because IBM did not invent the world wide web."

    This guy just made my day as the stuff he said is so hilarious. So in general he's not challenging the validity of the patent but actually challenges where it g

  • "AI Plus a Chemistry Robot Finds All the Reactions That Will Work"
    https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]

    This is a prime example of why patents are absurd and should be discontinued.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry

Close