Posted on 12/15/2009 12:34:24 PM PST by Swordmaker
BetaNet on Monday filed a lawsuit against 18 companies, including Apple, Adobe and Microsoft.
Filed in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, the lawsuit claims the companies violate the ‘134 patent, entitled “Secure System for Activating Personal Computer Software at Remote Locations.” The patent was issued on June 22, 1993, according to the lawsuit.
BetaNet specifically mentions Apple’s iTunes, Aperture, QuickTime and MobileMe as infringing on its patent.
The lawsuit describes Apple’s violation like this: “The program file contains a first executive control program, representing a limited version of the program file. License transaction information is entered in the registration shell portion, and that information is transmitted from the registration shell to a separate registration program provided in a registration computer. The registration program merges the license transaction information with a second executive control program – representing a complete version of the program file – to generate a unique overlay file. The unique overlay file is transmitted from the registration program to the registration shell, and contains the second executive control program. The overlay file is installed in the main program file, thereby allowing complete operation of the program file.”
Companies named in the lawsuit include Adobe; Apple; Arial Software; Autodesk; Carbonite; Corel; Eastman Kodak Co; International Business Machines Corp; Intuit; Microsoft; McAfee; Online Holdings; Oracle; Rockwell Automation; Rosetta Stone; SAP America; Siemens; and Sony Creative Software.
Patent lawyer fishing for a big payoff.
Seems to me there ought to be an adverse-possession aspect to a patent... if you don't enforce it early and often, you lose it.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
I fear that one of these days I’m going to be named in a patent lawsuit because of the procedure I use for cooking my scrambled eggs in the morning... LOL...
I’ll have to admit that I’ll probably have no defense... :-)
I agree. Or at least issue a cease-and-desist within 180 days of knowing of the actions you consider infringement, so the "infringing" company knows that's how you view it and can act accordingly.
Cook them over easy and serve on a split biscuit.
Then I will sue you for patent infringement:)
hoo-boy! :-)
It’s getting so that now I automatically think “patent troll” if it’s from the Eastern District of Texas.
Shouldn’t be too hard to find “prior art” for this concept, predating 1993.
Patent Troll...Adverse Possession.
The simple truth is a lot of small people come up with good and useful ideas, while a lot of big Companies ignore and often outright steal the ideas and creations of small people.
I listened to a Corporate lawyer laughing once. He made it clear to creditors if they sued his company he did not even have to talk to them for the year or so once the suit was filed before court action would begin.. The same would be true for a small patent holder.
I watched a Major Defense Contractor IMO Flat Out Steal the Air Defense Creation of a Few young Soldiers and NCOs up at Ft Lewis Washington.. The Soldiers doing their job needed a way to track incoming enemy aircraft down to the individual MANPADS level
http://www.fas.org/irp/dia/manpads_components.pdf
Like good Americans, like the Sgt who created the hedgerow cutter for US Tanks in WWII.. they devised a simple yet robust system on their own. They built it from what they had on hand and put it into use with the support of their Officers.
The Corporation then IMO literally stole the whole concept developing and offering the system back to the US Army for big bucks.. The Soldiers were told since they were in the Army when they created it.. The idea did not belong to them but somehow it did belong to the Corporation.
Only because NCOs and Officers raised hell about the crooked nature of the Defense Contractors Actions (Though technically legal) did the Company even give the young Soldiers some modest sized checks for their creation..
So this is a two way street... These big companies with Lawyers on staff can fight off legitimate claims for years.
Walk in with your patent in hand and their legal staff will laugh you out of their offices.
Ask yourself: If you create a nice widget how long could you pay Lawyers at $250 an hour.. to defend your creation against a Bill Gates who makes $10k+ everytime you blink 24/7 365 days a year. Now think of some Corporation who profits much more than that.
The “Patent Troll” Lawyers are little different agreed. More like just another lobby of Pirates and the actual process creater may get little to nothing.
Of course there are times when some processes are obvious and probably should not be patentable.. the problem is that big Corporations will do the same thing once they secure the Patent from the little guy.. Defend the process blocking everbody else from using it without their permission.
No good solution yet I can see
Just not a one sided affair thats all..
W
Software patents are BS. They didn't used to be allowed, but ever since the patent office was taken over by affirmative-action types who know nothing, anything could happen.
My only point.
They selectively left off several other publishers that also use similar technology.
I think you mean there are certain process/pieces of code which should not be patentable.. Actual Software..If your the guys that created “HALO” I think you should be the only folks to own the rights to market it.
This case I think is about someone grabbing a bit of code and or process developed by someone else and sticking it in their Software... Thats tougher it get;s dodgey. We would not accept Plagarisim in a book.. so why accept it in code?.. But then again code is sort of like building a house.. using 2X4s there are only so many ways to do frame it it...and I know of no one who claims Patent Right of the Framing of a House.. (I wonder if some one did long ago?)
Respectfully Confused on the issue lol
W
No problem with that.
It's when people are allowed to patent algorithms that the excitement begins.
If you're going to allow algorithms to be patented, then why not mathematics.
The first guy with a patent gets to collect a royalty for anybody who uses the Pythagorean Theorem!
We are in agreement just took some time to get there.. Your analogy is better than mine by far and makes the point..
Repects
W
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.