Antivirus Firm Pays Up To Avoid Being Barred From Selling In The US

from the yup.--that's-innovation dept

Last summer we noted that a seller of anti-virus appliances was on the verge of being completely barred from selling in the US for infringing on a patent held by Trend Micro for server-based anti-virus software. It seemed a bit odd that server-based anti-virus software could be patented — but that’s what happened. Of course, with the risk of having its US sales blocked out, Fortinet has decided to settle the lawsuit. The terms aren’t stated, but you can assume that Fortinet had to pay some sum to Trend Micro just to keep selling its product in the US. Considering just how obvious the “invention” is, it hardly seems likely that Fortinet needed Trend Micro’s info to create its appliances — but now it has to pay up just to keep selling. That doesn’t seem like promoting innovation at all.


Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Antivirus Firm Pays Up To Avoid Being Barred From Selling In The US”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
16 Comments
Gainer says:

Response: Antivirus Firm Pays Up To Avoid Being Ba

Read the Patent #5,623,600 from April 1997. The concept of server-base virus software is not the core of the patent. It is the 822 process steps that are documented make the patent defensible. Trend has quite specific definitions for how the technology is built – the dispute must have some merit. I believe defending intellectual property is important to defend in the US as nearly 70% of our economy is service-based (we don’t make capital goods like we used to)

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,623,600.WKU.&OS=PN/5,623,600&RS=PN/5,623,600

giafly says:

Blackmail Sucks

Re: I believe defending intellectual property is important to defend in the US as nearly 70% of our economy is service-based (we don’t make capital goods like we used to)

Strange use of the word “defend”, to describe one company attacking another.
And surely patent lawsuits make a bad situation worse, not better, by increasing the costs of manufacturing in the USA?

foofdawg says:

Re: Blackmail Sucks

“And surely patent lawsuits make a bad situation worse, not better, by increasing the costs of manufacturing in the USA?”

I don’t think I’d be too happy if someone else was making money off of something I patented. I also don’t see where the manufacturing cost of software that is already completed and sold on the retail market would rise because of their lawsuit.

Mike (profile) says:

Re: Re: Blackmail Sucks

I don’t think I’d be too happy if someone else was making money off of something I patented.

Which misses the point entirely. Hey, I wouldn’t be too happy if someone opened up a competing pizza shop next to the pizza shop I run, but THAT’S COMPETITION. You have to compete in the marketplace — not the patent office.

As for patents increasing costs, they add greatly to the legal fees associated with being in the software business.

Anonymous Coward says:

Software patents suck

they are the biggest thing threatening inovation in software

its a virtual mine field, you cant really write ANY new software that does anything without using patented obvious code. fortunately most of the time you arent sued on it. didnt i see a case a while back where microsoft got sued for some kind of browser plugin system? i mean microsoft makes the OS, makes the dll loading mechanism, makes the browser, makes the ability to load browser plugins for it 😉 and someone else does it, and patents it.. its like .. someone builds a road, and you patent driving on it and sue them..

Igor says:

But don’t you see, they are promoting innovation, they just want it all for themselves. I do have to agree that the fact that they somehow patented server based antivirus itself is pretty surprising. Patents can be notoriously hard to attain and are very specific. I am thinking that the server based antivirus is the general term for what they patented, but the process itself is quite specific. And, if this held up in court, there is probably something to it. Also, my bet is against a lump sum payment, and for a permanent percentage of sales….just a hunch, though.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...