Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Mar 2011 22:52 UTC, submitted by ephracis
Legal Since competing on merit is looked down upon in the computer and software world, companies in this business usually go for the blindfolded chick with the scale and sword. Up until recently, Microsoft didn't go for the whole patent litigation thing, but now that they've tasted some, they want more. They just sued Barnes & Noble, Foxconn, and Inventec for patent infringement because they use Android.
Thread beginning with comment 467296
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Patent Infringement
by tomcat on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 04:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Patent Infringement"
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

If the patent claims get thrown out, as there seems at first galnce to be a very good chance


These companies will no doubt mount a legal defense, and they'll have an opportunity to have the patents nullified. But I wouldn't bet on it.

... then Microsoft is a sitting duck for tortiuous interference and antitrust counterclaims.


Given that you're not a lawyer and what you've just typed is utter bullshit, I can only laugh at you. This is the equivalent of monkeys throwing shit against the wall in hopes that something will stick.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Patent Infringement
by lemur2 on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 04:39 in reply to "RE[6]: Patent Infringement"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"If the patent claims get thrown out, as there seems at first galnce to be a very good chance
These companies will no doubt mount a legal defense, and they'll have an opportunity to have the patents nullified. But I wouldn't bet on it. "

It may be cheaper for Barnes&Noble to simply do as HTC did, when faced with similar outrageous claims from Microsoft.

Doesn't make it right, only means it is cheaper for Barnes&Noble.

Microsoft are almost betting on this, because then Microsoft can take the "high moral ground" in their FUD PR campaigns. This would be the whole reason for Microsoft doing things like this claiming of extremely weak patents. Sooner or later it will turn aoround and bite them.

"... then Microsoft is a sitting duck for tortiuous interference and antitrust counterclaims.
Given that you're not a lawyer and what you've just typed is utter bullshit, I can only laugh at you. This is the equivalent of monkeys throwing shit against the wall in hopes that something will stick. "

http://271patent.blogspot.com/2007/10/oklahoma-jury-tags-patentee-1...

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Pa3CK0ocxGgC&pg=RA1-SA5-PA31&lp...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Patent Infringement
by rhavyn on Wed 23rd Mar 2011 15:31 in reply to "RE[7]: Patent Infringement"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

"[q]... then Microsoft is a sitting duck for tortiuous interference and antitrust counterclaims.
Given that you're not a lawyer and what you've just typed is utter bullshit, I can only laugh at you. This is the equivalent of monkeys throwing shit against the wall in hopes that something will stick. "

http://271patent.blogspot.com/2007/10/oklahoma-jury-tags-patentee-1...

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Pa3CK0ocxGgC&pg=RA1-SA5-PA3... [/q]

The article you linked to says:

"Patent Enforcement Team (PET) obtained a patent claiming to cover the grinding machines Dickson manufactured, and proceeded to send demand letters to Dickson, Dickson's customers, and potential customers. Soon thereafter, Dickson's rumble strip equipment business began drying up.

Dickson filed a declaratory judgment action near its home town of Tecumseh[...]"

In other words, you didn't find a case where someone enforcing their patent rights were found liable for interference or antitrust claims, you found a case where someone was harassing another companies customers and got sued over it. Why did you need to link to a lawsuit which so very clearly doesn't match the facts in this case? Because you will simply not find a case where a legitimate patent lawsuit resulted in any kind of interference or antitrust claims. It's absurd to even contemplate.

1. The entire point of patents is to create a monopoly situation, thus being able to invoke antitrust statues defeats the purpose and is a non-starter.

2. You can't be interfering in a business relationship that was founded on misappropriated intellectual property.

3. Patents are consider valid the moment they are granted.

Because of 3, any patent infringement lawsuit is, by default, legitimate. As long as you continue to sue the party which is infringing, 1 can't come into play and, if you win, 2 is no long explicitly problematic either.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Patent Infringement
by Morgan on Wed 23rd Mar 2011 16:59 in reply to "RE[7]: Patent Infringement"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Unfortunately you're right; it's Patent Chess and Microsoft is holding quite a few (bought and paid for) queens on their board. It sickens me to see a multi-billion dollar company get even richer while true inventors and innovators languish because they couldn't afford to buy up thousands of obscure, overly broad patents like the big boys.

I don't know how we can possibly make this any better. We can't just throw out the current system and start over, it would be utter chaos. We'd have to overhaul the entire patent system a piece at a time, and that will never happen as long as the big companies are allowed to lobby the lawmakers in charge of authorizing change.

Reply Parent Score: 3