<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;acacia&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 5 Oct 2012 11:03:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Early Inventor Of Streaming Video Wants To Help Fight Off Video Streaming Patent Trolls</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121004/19034020616/early-inventor-streaming-video-wants-to-help-fight-off-video-streaming-patent-trolls.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121004/19034020616/early-inventor-streaming-video-wants-to-help-fight-off-video-streaming-patent-trolls.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/user/tasmot">TasMot</a> points us to a recent blog post by Jacques Mattheij, who developed one of the earliest, if not <i>the</i> earliest version of browser-based streaming video back in 1995, about <a href="http://jacquesmattheij.com/my-brush-with-a-patent-troll" target="_blank">his experience with patent trolls</a>.  There's an initial experience with an attempt by patent trolling giant Acacia to try to shake him down, which failed mainly because Mattheij's company was mostly based in the Netherlands, making it difficult for Acacia to go after them (and, Mattheij notes, that patent was eventually invalidated... but not until 2009, by which time plenty of damage could have been done).  However, he notes that a more recent troll has popped up on the scene, named Joao Control, who has apparently <a href="http://dockets.justia.com/search?q=Joao+Control+and+Monitoring+Systems+LLC" target="_blank">been busy suing</a> a bunch of companies, including some online video operations like, Sling Media and WebcamNow, as well as a bunch of auto companies (including Hyundai, Ford, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota and Honda).  You can read through the cases if you'd like, but they all seem pretty ridiculous.  Joao appears to argue that it has patented "systems for remotely controlling video systems."
<br /><br />
There are a few patents that pop up in the various lawsuits, but Joao appears to <a href="https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&#038;tbm=pts&#038;hl=en&#038;q=ininventor:%22Raymond+Anthony+Joao%22">hold a few hundred patents</a> on a fairly wide variety of areas. "Joao" is really Raymond Joao, himself a patent lawyer, who apparently realized that rather than representing others, there was tons of money to be made by getting a bunch of patents himself (represented by himself) and then going after others.   For what it's worth (and without making any statement on the merits of this claim), some employees/inventors of a company for whom Joao once represented have <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060119/1225216.shtml#c26" target="_blank">previously accused Joao</a> of filing for some of his patents while working for them, taking their ideas and then filing his own patents on them.
<br /><br />
Either way, Joao has been arguing that he's patented certain forms of streaming video, and Mattheij finds the whole thing ridiculous, and has made an offer to anyone sued by Joao (or any other patent troll) over online streaming:
<blockquote><i>
I&#8217;m pretty anal when it comes to data retention, I can go back 25+ years when it comes to software that I have developed. And that came in pretty handy. I provided the counsel for the defense through the defendant (which I had had prior dealings with, they were an early licensee of the software) with all the relevant data and made myself available as an expert witness. It never came to that.
<br /><br />
If anybody out there finds themselves sued because of violation of patents regarding streaming video and payment systems then here is a standing offer to give you a full packet of data with a detailed timeline documenting the first use of streaming video on the world-wide-web, sample images from public broadcasts using this technology from well published events (such as World Media Live using the software to broadcast the &#8216;96 Yves St. Laurent fashion show but there were plenty of others before that, it took a while to gain traction), the first use of pay-per-view and subscription based access to streaming video and audio and many more such milestones. This offer is free of charge, if it should come to any form of testimony then I&#8217;m more than happy to go where ever it is needed if you pay my way (airfare + basic accomodation is fine) or to give remote testimony via - rich irony here - video link, in which case it is free.
<br /><br />
It is high time that this matter is laid to rest once and for all, Joao Controls is clearly abusing the legal system in the full knowledge that their patents are of 0 value.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, patent system apologists will point out that he never patented his own work, and Mattheij answers that the same way many developers I know have answered various patent questions, by noting that what they did was nothing special, and the idea that it deserves patent protection is ridiculous.
<blockquote><i>
I&#8217;ve never harped on public recognition for coming up with a way to stream live video to the browser (as far as I know it&#8217;s not mentioned in places like wikipedia) because as far as I&#8217;m concerned it was a rather trivial affair software wise. Some of the stuff I have built was several orders of magnitude more work and vastly more complex than this. <b>To register a patent for something like that to me is abuse of the patent system</b>. There is no substantial research to invest in, it is just basic plumbing, a re-use or composition if you want of existing elements in a new but obvious form. So, in order to frustrate any further attempts at shake-down of hardworking people by parasitic patent trolls I hereby stake a public claim on the creation of the first streaming webcam software, in March of 1995, to the claim of having the first combination of streaming video and credit card payments for pay-per-view and subscription based access in May of 1995 for a customer that became very well known with the product, and for plug-in free streaming video and audio combined in July of 1996. And I&#8217;m willing to stand by that claim and defend it with documentation if challenged. 
</i></blockquote>
Kudos to Mattheij for making this offer and standing up for what's right, though it's simply ridiculous that he even needs to do this in the first place.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121004/19034020616/early-inventor-streaming-video-wants-to-help-fight-off-video-streaming-patent-trolls.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121004/19034020616/early-inventor-streaming-video-wants-to-help-fight-off-video-streaming-patent-trolls.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121004/19034020616/early-inventor-streaming-video-wants-to-help-fight-off-video-streaming-patent-trolls.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>nice-offer</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121004/19034020616</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:40:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Empirical Evidence Of Just How Much Patent Trolling Hinders Innovation</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120409/04424118424/empirical-evidence-just-how-much-patent-trolling-hinders-innovation.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120409/04424118424/empirical-evidence-just-how-much-patent-trolling-hinders-innovation.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Over at Slate, Ray Fisman has an excellent article <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2012/04/patent_trolls_how_they_stifle_innovation_.single.html" target="_blank">discussing some recent research on how patent trolling hinders innovation</a>.  Much of the story focuses on the research of Catherine Tucker at MIT, which looked specifically at <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1976593" target="_blank">patent trolling in medical imaging</a>, and presents incredibly compelling evidence of just how massively innovation is hindered in that space, thanks mainly to patent trolling by famed patent trolling giant, Acacia.  To account for other possibilities, she compared both medical imaging storage and medical text storage systems.  Both types of software are similarly complex, and many of the first sued produce both kinds of software -- but the patent lawsuit here only impacted the <i>imaging</i> side of the business.  But the results were clear:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/eGAZc"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/eGAZc.png" width=450 /></a>
</center>
Basically, the companies that got sued started selling a lot less product on the imaging side -- but remained about equal on textual data storage.  The same was not seen for those who were not sued.  To account for the idea that this might have been due to a sudden drop in demand, she <i>also</i> researched the number of RFPs (requests for proposal) that were sent out for both medical imaging storage systems and textual data storage systems -- and saw both continue to increase at pretty massive rates.  In other words, demand remained quite high (and growing) even as sales massively dropped.
<br /><br />
So why the sharp drop?  Basically, the companies that were sued <b>stopped innovating</b>.  As Fisman summarizes:
<blockquote><i>
Why the slowdown in sales? Imagine what would happen to iPhone sales if Apple&#8217;s last product was its 3G phone introduced in 2009: Android-based devices would be running away with the market. Tucker claims that at least part of the reason imaging software sales were slowed by the Acacia suit is that R&#038;D at the affected companies went into a deep freeze. <b>In the two years following the suit, none of the defendants came out with a single new version of their products, while improvements continued in their text-based systems and at smaller competitors not subject to the suit</b>.
</i></blockquote>
One of the most difficult things about discussing how the pace of innovation is held back is the difficult of showing <i>what doesn't happen</i>.  We get this all the time, where people who can't understand the difference between <i>absolute</i> changes and the <i>rate</i> of change, insist that because there is still <i>innovation</i> in a market, that innovation hasn't been hindered.  Of course, that's ridiculous.  No one is saying that all innovation <i>ceases</i>.  The concern is merely with the rate of change: the pace of innovation, and how it may be slower than would otherwise be seen.  The difficulty, of course is in how do you show <i>what would have been</i>?  That's the most challenging part.  But this study does a really nice job of showing how innovation in the space slowed down massively just after the lawsuits, when there's almost no other explanation for how that might have happened.  It's an incredibly damning report against patent trolls and how they hinder innovation.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120409/04424118424/empirical-evidence-just-how-much-patent-trolling-hinders-innovation.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120409/04424118424/empirical-evidence-just-how-much-patent-trolling-hinders-innovation.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120409/04424118424/empirical-evidence-just-how-much-patent-trolling-hinders-innovation.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-evidence-keeps-rolling-in</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120409/04424118424</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:06:36 PDT</pubDate>
<title>That Didn't Take Long: Amazon Sued For Patent Infringement For New Kindle Fire Tablet</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111012/03322316320/that-didnt-take-long-amazon-sued-patent-infringement-new-kindle-fire-tablet.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111012/03322316320/that-didnt-take-long-amazon-sued-patent-infringement-new-kindle-fire-tablet.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The general rule continues to prove itself true: do anything interesting in the tech world, and you <i>will</i> get sued for patent infringement.  Just weeks after Amazon announced its new Kindle Fire tablet, <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20118548-38/amazons-kindle-fire-tablet-hit-by-patent-lawsuit/" target="_blank">the company has been sued for patent infringement</a> by well-known patent troll Smartphone Technologies, a subsidiary of patent trolling giant Acacia.  Just a few months ago we noted that Smartphone Technologies/Acacia was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110721/02264715188/acacia-buys-up-more-smartphone-apps-patents-watch-patent-thicket-get-worse.shtml">buying up</a> more smartphone related patents, as it looks to seriously cash in on anyone actually doing anything in the space.
<br /><br />
The patents in question:
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=ARMVAAAAEBAJ&#038;printsec=frontcover&#038;dq=6,956,562,&#038;hl=en&#038;ei=WmmVTvuCJs7XiAKhrc3CAg&#038;sa=X&#038;oi=book_result&#038;ct=result&#038;resnum=1&#038;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA" target="_blank">6,956,562</a>: Method for controlling a handheld computer by entering commands onto a displayed feature of the handheld computer (originally a PalmSource patent)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=J1wLAAAAEBAJ&#038;printsec=frontcover&#038;dq=6466236&#038;hl=en&#038;ei=5POSTouNDYLl0QGfm_BH&#038;sa=X&#038;oi=book_result&#038;ct=result&#038;resnum=1&#038;ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA" target="_blank">6,466,236</a>: System and method for displaying and manipulating multiple calendars on a personal digital assistant (originally a Palm Inc. patent)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=hPAVAAAAEBAJ&#038;printsec=frontcover&#038;dq=6,950,645&#038;hl=en&#038;ei=N2uVTu-mN7DQiAKg_IjkDg&#038;sa=X&#038;oi=book_result&#038;ct=result&#038;resnum=1&#038;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA" target="_blank">6,950,645</a>: Power-conserving intuitive device discovery technique in a bluetooth environment (originally a PalmSource patent)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=0Qi6AAAAEBAJ&#038;printsec=frontcover&#038;dq=7,506,064&#038;hl=en&#038;ei=o2uVTsj1DpL-iQL3y-T2BA&#038;sa=X&#038;oi=book_result&#038;ct=result&#038;resnum=1&#038;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA" target="_blank">7,506,064</a>: Handheld computer system that attempts to establish an alternative network link upon failing to establish a requested network link (another PalmSource patent).
</li><li><a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=0N6sAAAAEBAJ&#038;pg=PA1&#038;dq=RE40,459&#038;hl=en&#038;ei=JWyVTpbnKarViALi1fiEBQ&#038;sa=X&#038;oi=book_result&#038;ct=result&#038;resnum=1&#038;ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&#038;q=RE40%2C459&#038;f=false" target="_blank">RE40,459</a>: Method and apparatus for communicating information over low bandwidth communications networks (and, yet again, PalmSource)</li>
</ul>
So Palm may be dead and buried inside HP... but at least we know its patent legacy lives on in making products people want more expensive and less able to come to market.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111012/03322316320/that-didnt-take-long-amazon-sued-patent-infringement-new-kindle-fire-tablet.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111012/03322316320/that-didnt-take-long-amazon-sued-patent-infringement-new-kindle-fire-tablet.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111012/03322316320/that-didnt-take-long-amazon-sued-patent-infringement-new-kindle-fire-tablet.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>up-in-flames</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111012/03322316320</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:53:10 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Acacia Buys Up More Smartphone Apps Patents: Watch The Patent Thicket Get Worse</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110721/02264715188/acacia-buys-up-more-smartphone-apps-patents-watch-patent-thicket-get-worse.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110721/02264715188/acacia-buys-up-more-smartphone-apps-patents-watch-patent-thicket-get-worse.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last year, I put together a graphic highlighting the ridiculous nature of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20101007/22591311328/meet-the-patent-thicket-who-s-suing-who-for-smartphone-patents.shtml">the smartphone patent thicket</a>:
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/nCXc7.jpg" width=560 />
</center>
That graphic is both incomplete and out of date.  It's incomplete in that it doesn't even show <i>all</i> of the lawsuits.  It also leaves out the licensing deals, which many companies feel pressured to enter into to avoid lawsuits.  On top of that, since I made that graphic there have actually been a <i>lot</i> more lawsuits filed.  This graphic has received plenty of attention.  I get about one request per week these days from some group somewhere in the world asking if they can use that graphic for a report (you don't need to ask permission: feel free).  It also showed up in the very high profile <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/00355214310/uk-copyright-review-hardly-surprising-radical-will-face-opposition.shtml">Hargreaves Review</a> of intellectual property rules in the UK.
<br /><br />
Honestly, I have little interest in updating the graphic, because it was already a lot of work to put together, but it seems likely that rather than getting any better, the situation is only getting worse.  We're still waiting to see the fallout from the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110701/01110214930/nortel-patents-sold-45-billion-to-apple-emc-microsoft-rim-ericsson-sony.shtml">Nortel patent purchase</a>, but it almost certainly will lead to more lawsuits.  Separately, while the actual federal court patent trials have been moving slowly, the parallel track (with different rules!) known as <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080702/1117121576.shtml">the ITC loophole</a> has been issuing new decisions every few weeks, including a big ruling <a href="http://venturebeat.com/2011/07/15/why-apples-itc-patent-victory-over-htc-android-phones-is-scary/" target="_blank">for Apple</a> saying that HTC infringed on Apple patents.
<br /><br />
And it seems like even more patents are about to get tossed into the fray as well.  <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/glynmoody/statuses/93652984319328256" target="_blank">Glyn Moody</a> points us to the news that <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/acacia-subsidiary-acquires-smartphone-patents-2011-07-20?reflink=MW_news_stmp" target="_blank">Acacia just bought "a valuable patent portfolio"</a> relating to mobile applications for use in smartphones and other wireless computing devices.  Oddly, Acacia provides <i>no</i> additional details.  It doesn't name who the patents came from.  It says that the patents are now owned by an Acacia subsidiary, but doesn't name the subsidiary.  They're being deliberately slimy.
<br /><br />
But, you can rest assured that these patents will show up in litigation pretty damn quickly.  There's been a lot of concern about mobile app patents in the last few months thanks to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110601/02350314503/lodsys-sues-developers-ahead-deadline-it-gave-developers-to-pay-up.shtml">Lodsys</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110718/04325415144/app-developers-dropping-out-us-out-fears-over-patent-lawsuits.shtml">Kootol</a>... and assuming that Acacia didn't buy out one of those two, it seems like there could be even more reasons to fear.
<br /><br />
It's incredibly difficult to see how <i>anyone</i> can claim with a straight face that the actions described here help innovation in any way.  If you're just an app developer, creating something cool for a smartphone... and you suddenly find yourself smack dab in the middle of this disaster, it's a massive hindrance to innovation and development of useful apps.  This isn't just a "mess," it's a disaster for innovation.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110721/02264715188/acacia-buys-up-more-smartphone-apps-patents-watch-patent-thicket-get-worse.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110721/02264715188/acacia-buys-up-more-smartphone-apps-patents-watch-patent-thicket-get-worse.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110721/02264715188/acacia-buys-up-more-smartphone-apps-patents-watch-patent-thicket-get-worse.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>putting-the-brakes-on-innovation</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110721/02264715188</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:42:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The 'Other' One-Click Patent Holder Sues Apple, Paypal... And Victoria's Secret</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110317/03581313527/other-one-click-patent-holder-sues-apple-paypal-victorias-secret.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110317/03581313527/other-one-click-patent-holder-sues-apple-paypal-victorias-secret.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A couple years ago, we wrote about how Amazon, holder of the extremely infamous "one-click patent," had been sued by another firm, Cordance, claiming to hold a one-click patent.  About a year and a half ago, Amazon apparently <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090827/0241206016.shtml">won</a> that case.  Unfortunately, a judge <a href="http://blogs.forbes.com/docket/2010/07/27/amazon-allowed-to-keep-infringing-one-click-system/" target="_blank">effectively overruled the jury</a>, saying that some of the claims the jury insisted were invalid were actually valid.  Thanks to that, it appears that Cordance is back, and <a href="http://paidcontent.org/article/419-apple-and-paypal-hit-with-lawsuit-over-patent-for-one-click/" target="_blank">is suing Apple, PayPal and Victoria's Secret</a>, claiming they all violate its one-click patent (<a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=XncSAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=6,757,710" target="_blank">6,757,710</a>).  The patent seems to be crazy vague.  It's still stunning that anyone -- let alone two people -- can hold a patent for letting someone buy something with one click.  Separately, the article notes that Victoria's Secret is currently dealing with five separate active patent lawsuits, all based in East Texas (of course).  Kind of makes you wonder if someone thinks that the models will actually show up to defend the company...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110317/03581313527/other-one-click-patent-holder-sues-apple-paypal-victorias-secret.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110317/03581313527/other-one-click-patent-holder-sues-apple-paypal-victorias-secret.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110317/03581313527/other-one-click-patent-holder-sues-apple-paypal-victorias-secret.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>are-they-hoping-to-get-paid-in-models?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110317/03581313527</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 04:49:49 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Red Hat Settles Patent Case With Acacia... But Won't Share The Details</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101004/21311611286/red-hat-settles-patent-case-with-acacia-but-won-t-share-the-details.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101004/21311611286/red-hat-settles-patent-case-with-acacia-but-won-t-share-the-details.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Of the software companies out there, Red Hat has been the most aggressive in fighting against software patents.  It's stood up on principle, and earlier this year even <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100502/2145409269.shtml">won a lawsuit</a> from one of Acacia's many, many shell companies (and it won in East Texas too, making it that much more impressive).  However, <a href="http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/10/04/2148218/Red-Hat-Settles-Patent-Case?from=twitter" target="_blank">Slashdot</a> points us to the news that, in another lawsuit involving another Acacia shell company (this time, called Software Tree) it looks like <a href="http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2010/10/red-hat-settles-patent-case-wi.html" target="_blank">Red Hat has settled</a> -- and, unfortunately, it's keeping pretty quiet about what happened.  I'm sure that's part of the terms that Acacia negotiated (patent hoarders <i>never</i> want the details of settlements released), but it's unfortunate, because it leaves everyone else in the dark, and lets Acacia continue to shake down others with this patent.  The patent in question (<a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=FlMGAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=6,163,776" target="_blank">6,163,776</a>) covers "System and method for exchanging data and commands between an object oriented system and a relational system," because, you know, without patents, no one would have ever figured <i>that</i> out.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101004/21311611286/red-hat-settles-patent-case-with-acacia-but-won-t-share-the-details.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101004/21311611286/red-hat-settles-patent-case-with-acacia-but-won-t-share-the-details.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101004/21311611286/red-hat-settles-patent-case-with-acacia-but-won-t-share-the-details.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>too-bad</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101004/21311611286</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 3 May 2010 10:11:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Here's A Surprise: Red Hat Wins Patent Lawsuit In East Texas</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100502/2145409269.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100502/2145409269.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's so rare that we post about a good patent ruling coming out of East Texas that it seems worth highlighting that they <i>do</i> happen.  The latest is that Red Hat <a href="http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/05/01/462093/red-hat-wins-texas-showdown.html" target="_blank">won after being sued by a patent hoarder</a>, who claimed that every version of Linux infringed on its patents.  The jury found that the patents in question were invalid and tossed them out.  You may recall that we actually wrote about this lawsuit <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071012/115209.shtml">when it was filed</a>, noting that the company who filed it, IP Innovation, was actually one of many shell companies representing Acacia, which for many years has been a leader in hoarding patents and suing companies who actually innovate.  We also noted at the time that the patents in question seemed highly questionable.  The fact that even a jury (which tends to find patents valid the majority of the time) found the patents ridiculous is pretty telling.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100502/2145409269.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100502/2145409269.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100502/2145409269.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>didn't-see-that-coming</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100502/2145409269</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 1 Oct 2009 23:42:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Court Invalidates Key Patent Claims In Acacia's Streaming Media Patent</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091001/0211456380.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091001/0211456380.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The EFF's painfully slow <a href="http://w2.eff.org/patent/" target="_blank">patent busting project</a> keeps on seeing success -- even if it's taking forever.  The number one patent on the list was Acacia's streaming media patent, that was brought to court <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030214/1548209.shtml">more than six years ago</a>, basically going after anyone who did online streaming media.  Acacia, of course, is one of the biggest and most well known of the patent hoarding firms that started getting lots of attention earlier this decade (the company now often tries to hide patents in shell companies, since the Acacia name is now so closely associated with "patent troll").  With this patent, Acacia was especially sneaky, in that it started by <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20021216/1626236.shtml">going after porn sites</a>, figuring they wouldn't want to fight back.
<br /><br />
Either way, a district court has just  <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/federal-court-partially-invalidates-one-eff-most-wanted-patents" target="_new">tossed out the 10 claims that it was asserting in its lawsuit against cable and satellite TV providers</a>, claiming that they're all invalid.  The EFF doesn't get credit for this one, since it wasn't through a USPTO patent review process, the overall impact is the same.  For all intents and purposes, the parts of this patent that were being asserted against so many companies have been declared invalid.  It doesn't change the fact that tons of companies have spent years and years fighting it and paying legal fees, but that's our patent system for you.  Encouraging "innovation" the same way the mob encourages "safe neighborhoods."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091001/0211456380.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091001/0211456380.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091001/0211456380.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>down-goes-another-one</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091001/0211456380</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:21:25 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Patent Battles Make It That Much More Difficult To Keep People Healthy</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080621/1148451466.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080621/1148451466.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The problem with the view that patents should be given out for every little improvement (most of which would have come about naturally thanks to market demand) is that you end up with "patent thickets" where a ton of different companies all claim patents on some small part of a larger offering.  This isn't just an argument about "ownership" or "rights" in some cases.  It can also have direct impact on keeping people alive.
<br /><br />
For example, just witness the patent battle going on in the medical device market <a href="http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2008/06/blood-in-the-water-acacia-sues-boston-scientific-and-medtronic.html" target="_new">concerning Boston Scientific, Johnson &#038; Johnson, Medtronic and... famed patent hoarder Acacia</a>.  Boston Scientific, Johnson &#038; Johnson and Medtronic have all been suing each other concerning various patents used in stent and catheter technology.  Acacia has now jumped into the fray by acquiring patents from Datascope and setting up yet another <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071127/015820.shtml">shell company</a> called Cardio Access.
<br /><br />
In all of these cases, everyone is claiming ownership over some piece of the technology used in stents and catheters, basically suggesting that others can't use that part of the technology without paying them.  The end result is that we're all put at greater risk.  Either stents and catheters won't be able to be as useful as they should be because they can't use the best possible technology -- or if they do use that technology, they get priced much higher to pay for all of these licenses from everyone else.  And, of course, with all of these patent lawsuits (and rewards -- since Boston Scientific has already had to pay out the two largest patent fines this year, totaling $750 million), money that could have been spent on making a better product is instead going into lawsuits.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080621/1148451466.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080621/1148451466.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080621/1148451466.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>what-a-shame</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080621/1148451466</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:21:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Giving An Allowance Patented: Acacia Sues Apple</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080212/021104237.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080212/021104237.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Acacia is a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?site=&#038;q=acacia&#038;tid=&#038;aid=&#038;searchin=stories">well known</a> patent hoarder, who buys up or licenses various unused patents and sets up <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071127/015820.shtml">subsidiaries</a> who do nothing but sue companies in the market who actually make products.  The latest Acacia lawsuit has been <a href="http://trolltracker.blogspot.com/2008/02/acacia-sues-apple-over-itunes-in-east.html" target="_new">filed against Apple for the "allowance" feature in iTunes</a> that allows someone to transfer a dollar amount of iTunes credit to someone else -- effectively allowing a parent with a credit card to issue some "allowance" for a kid to purchase iTunes.  You would think that such a concept wouldn't be patentable, given the history of parents giving kids an allowance -- but apparently the folks working in the patent office never received allowances as kids.  The <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=rUJ9AAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=7,143,064">patent itself</a> seems rather straightforward, but it's difficult to understand why such a thing is patentable in the first place.  In the Teleflex v. KSR ruling the Supreme Court noted that the patent office shouldn't just approve patents on <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070430/100114.shtml">combining</a> obvious ideas.  Mixing the internet with allowances would seem to fall into that camp, though this patent was issued prior to the Supreme Court ruling.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080212/021104237.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080212/021104237.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080212/021104237.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>giving-allowance-isn't-prior-art?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080212/021104237</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:26:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Acacia's Latest: You Sue Some, You Lose Some</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071114/025524.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071114/025524.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Acacia, one of the larger and more well known patent hoarding firms, has followed in the footsteps of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071112/024207.shtml">other</a> recent <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071101/185058.shtml">lawsuits</a> where the patent holder sues a bunch of companies at once.  The general reason for doing so is in order to pick the jurisdiction.  The fear is that if someone sues just one or two companies, then others may look to have a more favorable district court give a declaratory judgment saying they don't infringe.  In this case (which, surprisingly, does not take place in Marshall, Texas, but in Cleveland, Ohio), Acacia (or, more accurately, a subsidiary of Acacia) is using an old patent on <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=6DYhAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=5305205">computer-aided transcription</a> and applying it to predictive text systems.  Of course, predictive texting systems are quite common these days, making it easy to <a href="http://trolltracker.blogspot.com/2007/11/acacia-conquers-cleveland.html">sue 23 different companies for infringement</a>, including Microsoft, Nokia, IBM, Samsung, Sony, Qualcomm, RIM, Nintendo, Motorola, AT&#038;T, Verizon and a bunch of others along those lines.  Not surprising to see this from Acacia, but it's yet another overly broad patent being applied completely outside the space it was intended for, and being used to basically shakedown a ton of companies for offering useful products that were designed entirely independently of this patent.
<br /><br />
In more positive Acacia news however, the company (or, again, a subsidiary) has <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/11/15/Microsoft-wins-patent-suit_1.html?source=rss&#038;url=http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/11/15/Microsoft-wins-patent-suit_1.html">lost one of its other patent lawsuits against Microsoft</a>.  Turns out the jury (in Marshall, Texas, yes) didn't believe Microsoft violated the patent in question.  Won't stop Acacia from filing more such lawsuits, but always nice to find out that patent hoarders don't always win.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071114/025524.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071114/025524.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071114/025524.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>still-going...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071114/025524</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:32:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Acacia's Latest Target: NetFlix</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071023/012037.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071023/012037.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Acacia has become one of the most <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?site=&#038;q=acacia">hated</a> firms by technology companies that actually do stuff.  That's because Acacia is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) firms out there in the business of buying up patents solely to sue companies.  Acacia learned a while ago, though, that it was best to keep its name out of many of these suits, so it apparently tries to set up subsidiaries for many of the patents it buys (sometimes giving them silly names to make people think the companies actually do something).  Now, one of those subsidiaries, named Refined Recommendation Corporation is <a href="http://trolltracker.blogspot.com/2007/10/acacia-sues-netflix-is-patent-hawk.html">suing Netflix over a patent it holds</a> on <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=7ycOAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=6,606,102">optimizing interest potential</a>.  It's a patent on the idea of making recommendations or presenting specific information based on user actions.  I can recall both individuals and companies working on similar things well before this patent was applied for in 2000, but that's a different issue altogether.  Does anyone believe that Netflix (and plenty of other companies) wouldn't be doing content recommendations for people without this particular "breakthrough"?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071023/012037.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071023/012037.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071023/012037.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sue,-sue,-sue</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071023/012037</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:12:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Steve Ballmer's Prophecy Comes True: Former Microsoft Execs Sue Red Hat, Novell Over Patents</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071012/115209.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071012/115209.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <b>Jon</b> writes in to let us know that a small patent holding firm, IP Innovation, has <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071011205044141">sued Red Hat and Novell over patent infringement</a> concerning a ridiculously broad <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=3tUkAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=5,072,412">patent</a>.  As the Groklaw report outlines, the suing company is actually a subsidiary of Acacia, which is considered to be one of the more egregious firms in using bad patents to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?site=&#038;q=acacia">squeeze</a> money out of companies.  Groklaw also notes that Acacia has recently hired a bunch of execs from Microsoft, leading to the conspiracy theory that Steve Ballmer's recent <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071009/135529.shtml">predictions</a> of patent lawsuits against Red Hat were more than random speculation.  I'm not willing to go that far just yet, but as you can see from Ars Technica's <a href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070424-apple-sued-over-vague-user-interface-patent.html">breakdown</a> of the patent earlier this year (when the company sued Apple), it describes very broadly the concept of workspaces in a computer user interface.  This is yet another example of the worst of our patent system at work.  Companies that offer innovative products getting sued using vague, overly broad patents on obvious ideas that never should have been granted in the first place.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071012/115209.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071012/115209.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071012/115209.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>funny-how-that-works</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071012/115209</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>