RSS
Judge Shoots Down Flight Simulator Patent Suit Against Google Earth
from the nice-to-see dept
These days, it's increasingly rare to hear about bad patent lawsuits getting tossed -- as almost all the news stories seem to be about patent holders winning lawsuits, often with questionable patents. However, it appears that Google has prevailed in the latest case where a judge dismissed the lawsuit brought forth by a company that makes flight simulator software, who had claimed that Google Earth violated one of its patents. The judge had earlier denied an attempt by the company to force Google to stop distributing the software, so there had been some skepticism there already. When we last wrote about this lawsuit, we pointed to a nice dissection of the patent by Tim Lee, where he points out how the patent is both excessively broad and dangerously obvious. It's nice to see that the courts weren't taken in by it.
11 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
- We Don't Have A 'Wild West' Internet Now, But We Will If SOPA Or Similar Is Passed
- One Nation, Under Guard
- Supreme Court Denies Appeal For The Pirate Bay Founders
- White House Says It Can't Comment On Possible Chris Dodd Investigation
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Reply to Mr. Masnick
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Reply to Mr. Masnick
Noel. I didn't realize I needed to run my posts by you for approval first. ;)
I believe that the ridiculous scope and obviousness of the patent are very much worth mentioning, because it's an important point. That the judge didn't base the decision on that doesn't change the scope and obviousness.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Another reply to Masnick
Remember RIM and NTP. Had the case not ended so abruptly, we would not have any more problems wth NTP. But thats not the situation, NTP is pursuing other litigants as we speak (and probably using RIM's money to do it).
In the current case, it may have been better had the judge allowed the validity of the patent in question to be determined.
I agree that whether the implicated Google technology even falls under the scope of the patent is a threshhold issue, but instead of potentially uncovering a bad patent and stop trolling where I may arise in the future, what we are left with is simply a meritless accusation of patent infringement.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Howard Aiken said it best
Patetns I view like plagerism, sure you might be the first person to put something in a particualr order or arrange it in a certian fashion as to make it unquie. However, the odds are greatly against your favor that you've truely come up with an original piece of work, and it's not just a slight variation of many things that have come before it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Well that explains it...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
But...it's a valid point
Glad to see you're spending your valuable time being arrogantly condescending towards your readers, Mike (and no, the winkycon doesn't automatically make a mean-spirited comment OK).
I believe that the ridiculous scope and obviousness of the patent are very much worth mentioning, because it's an important point. That the judge didn't base the decision on that doesn't change the scope and obviousness.
But the fact that the judge didn't use "scope or obviousness" as his basis for denying the claim means that what you present above as fact is merely your (or Tim Lee's) opinion/interpretation. While that has value, as Noel said above, it's not the same as actually being the basis for the judge's comment.
If I complain on a blog somewhere that a company makes crappy products and then the company goes bankrupt, it's incorrect for me to state as fact that it was indeed the company's crappy products that led to the bankruptcy if there's no information to back up that specific claim. In the case above, we not only don't have information suggesting scope/obviousness were the reasons the case was dumped, the judge actually said he wasn't ruling on those issues. So there's absolutely no causal linkage between Lee's analysis and the case's outcome.
Interpretation is good -- that's why many of us read your site -- but don't start passing off interpretation/analysis as fact unless it's actually the case. We, your readers/customers, deserve that...and a modicum of respect...from you and your staff.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I don't see it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Cache?
So my question is how did Skyline manage to get a patent on Caching?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But...it's a valid point
Anyway, I don't really want to jump into a private debate, but there was nothing disrespectful about his response. You criticized his response, he clarified and criticized yours. It sounds like you are actually the one trying to play high and mighty. Why do you think your critique was above reproach?
The fact is that I agree with Mike. It was a valid bit of additional information of his posting to reference the fact that the patent was obviously broad and the scope was unreasonable. When people read about a patent for the first time, it is good to know regardless of the out come of the ruling, the background and practicality of the patent. The implications, while not ruled directly on this patent, is that at least some progress was made. I am a reader, I am a commentor, and I liked that part of the posting. If you have a problem with the way he posts, maybe you shouldn't read his?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But...it's a valid point
Couldn't have said it better Casper!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But...it's a valid point
And actually, it's not a "fact" that "the patent was obviously broad and the scope was unreasonable." That's your opinion. I certainly don't disagree with that opinion, but that doesn't make it a fact (unless you're a religious fundamentalist).
The point was that combining facts (journalism) with analysis is fine as long as the latter isn't passed of as the former, which is what seemed to be the case in the original post. Oh, and the snarky comment, which seemed out of place on a professionally run site like Techdirt.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment