<?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;corel&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:48:51 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Tons Of Companies Sued Over Broad Patent On Controlling Workstations In A Computer Network</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100622/0302119916.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100622/0302119916.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As we keep waiting for a Supreme Court ruling in the Bilski case (any day now...), <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody/statuses/16683903130" target="_blank">Glyn Moody</a> points us to the news of a lawsuit that has been <a href="http://www.techeye.net/business/apple-ibm-adobe-citrix-others-sued-over-software-patent" target="_blank">filed against 26 different software companies</a> for violating an incredibly broad patent (<a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=zCEXAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=5,832,511" target="_blank">5,832,511</a>) on "Workgroup network manager for controlling the operation of workstations within the computer network" (say that 10 times fast).  The list of companies sued is a who's who in software:
<blockquote><i>
Apple, Activision, Adobe, Autodesk, Capcom, Citrix, Corel, Dassault, Delcam, Square Enix, Electronic Arts, Frontrange Solutions, IBM, Intuit, Konami, Digital Entertainment, Maximizer Software, Nuance, Parametric Technology, Sage Software, Sega, Skype, SPSS, Teradata, THQ and Legacy Interactive
</i></blockquote>
I'm sure none of those companies could have possibly come up with a system for controlling the operation of workstations within a computer network without this patent.  At some point, isn't the fact that such a vast number of companies appear to have come up with the same basic thing independently a perfect prima facie case of obviousness?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100622/0302119916.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100622/0302119916.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100622/0302119916.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sue,-sue,-sue,-sue</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100622/0302119916</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:33:06 PST</pubDate>
<title>Secretive Patent Holder Sues Lots Of Companies For Remote Activation Software</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/0819597385.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/0819597385.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=thehackman">Brian</a> points us to the news of <a href="http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/12/16/mongo_patent_infringement_suit/" target="_blank">yet another questionable patent lawsuit</a> filed by yet another shell company, yet again in Eastern Texas against a ton of software companies.  The patent in question (<a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=yCZ8AAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=5,222,134" target="_blank">5,222,134</a>) is for a "secure system for activating personal computer software at remote locations," and was originally filed back in 1991 and granted in 1993 -- meaning that the patent is actually nearing end of life.  Odd, then, that it was suddenly noticed that all these companies were infringing.  The lawsuit is filed by a shell company called BetaNet, and no one seems willing to speak.  The lawyers representing BetaNet won't say who is behind the company, or how they even got the patent.  This is typical.  Many of these types of lawsuits are filed by shell companies to hide who is actually behind them.  As for the defendants, here's the list:
<blockquote><i>
Adobe, Apple, Arial Software, Autodesk, Carbonite, Corel, Kodak, IBM, Intuit, Microsoft, McAfee, Online Holdings, Oracle, Rockwell, Rosetta Stone, SAP, Siemens, and Sony.
</i></blockquote>
Obviously, none of those companies could have come up with ways to remotely activate software without this patent (yes, that's sarcasm).  As the Register notes in the link above, even some of the software products listed as violating this patent don't seem to involve activation at all, raising serious questions about how they could possibly violate this patent.  This sounds like yet another case of someone having read the book <i>Rembrandt's in the Attic</i> and deciding to go <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080224/162013330.shtml">trolling</a> for companies to sue with a meaningless patent.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/0819597385.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/0819597385.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/0819597385.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>gotta-get-it-done-before-bilski</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091216/0819597385</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>