Excellent! What else is there to say?
Troll hunter Rackspace turns Rotatable's bizarro patent to stone
Cloud hosting firm Rackspace has claimed victory over another patent troll, this time not merely by successfully challenging a patent suit, but by actually having the patent in question invalidated. "Rotatable Technologies is now an ex-patent troll," Rackspace VP of intellectual property Van Lindberg wrote in a blog post on …
COMMENTS
-
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 23rd September 2014 04:58 GMT MacroRodent
Re: Another feature I could live without...
"a form factor like the Nokia Communicator"
or like the Nokia N97 and some other Nokia phones, that can work both with touchscreen and the keyboard, because the screen is left outside when folded. I known the N97 is widely considered a lemon, but at least I found the the follow-on N97 Mini stable and a very usable after it reached the "fully patched" state a couple of years after introduction. I only stopped using it when the connection between the screen and the rest of the phone became unreliable, making it impossible to answer calls. The downside of having any hinges in the design...
-
Tuesday 23rd September 2014 06:38 GMT Christian Berger
Re: Another feature I could live without...
Well the Nokia Communicator solved the display issue with a second outward facing one... which is ingenious as it makes it behave like 2 devices which are interconnected. You can use the computer part independently of the phone part. You can even turn off the phone. Plus flipping shut the computer part causes it to turn to "suspend to RAM". If you should get mosh for it, it would be a kick ass device.
-
Tuesday 23rd September 2014 09:16 GMT David Haig
Re: Another feature I could live without...
Upvote for the Communicator - had every one from the 9000 "brick" onwards to its demise as the e90. Some of the keyboards were better than others, and towards the end the software lagged behind the smartphones, but as a business phone brilliant. Fax, data and voice - ideal for setting up multifunction printers 'on site'.
They don't make them like that anymore .....
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 23rd September 2014 04:22 GMT dan1980
"Eventually Rotatable offered to just walk away – but we refused again . . ."
Right on. Right on.
If only this was the norm, then companies like Rotatable would have to think very carefully about sending out such weak claims, knowing that once they start the process, they must wear the consequences.
I don't necessarily blame companies that choose to settle with 'patent trolls', but in this instance, not stopping bad practices very much encourages them. Patent Trolls are not 'evil' but the saying that evil occurs where good people do nothing is not entirely out of place here.
-
-
Tuesday 23rd September 2014 22:22 GMT the spectacularly refined chap
The problem a challenger faces is they run the risk of CONFIRMING the patent rather than invalidate it. This not only makes the patent bulletproof but the troll can now turn around and sue for WILLFUL infringement seeing as you challenged rather than submitted.
No, for two reasons. Firstly, there is more than one ground to have an invalid patent scrubbed and an almost infinite amount of prior art to sift through - having one attempt to invalidate scrubbed does not "confirm" the patent in any way - the patent is already assumed to be valid by the very fact it has been issued. However, if one attempt to invalidate fails that does not preclude anyone re-trying on different grounds.
Secondly, for willful infringement the litigator has to establish that you were aware of a valid patent and essentially said "fuck it". If you are disputing its validity that can't be asserted if your claims have any merit at all.
-
-
-
Tuesday 23rd September 2014 06:27 GMT dan1980
Re: Class Action?
@Richard Jones 1
Perhaps a body set up specifically to fund defence of spurious claims by NPEs, that is in turn funded by the larger groups that are targeted by them. This fund could then be used by even the smaller companies that are often preyed upon.
I think this would be in the best interests of those larger companies as any settlement or capitulation tends to lend credence the the NPE's claims. Thus, if an NPE knows that even the smaller targets have the funds and legal representation to back them up, perhaps there will be less value in buying up all these nonsense patents in the first place.
On that note, someone above said something about costs and there is a problem here, which is that Rackspace did seem to be infringing on the patent. The issue was that the patent was rubbish and should never have been granted in the first place. The blame really lies at the feet of the USPTO.
-
Thursday 25th September 2014 02:44 GMT crayon
Re: Class Action?
"Perhaps a body set up specifically to fund defence of spurious claims by NPEs, that is in turn funded by the larger groups that are targeted by them. This fund could then be used by even the smaller companies that are often preyed upon."
Perhaps some of these larger companies find paying the patent fees an acceptable cost of doing business and it gives them a competitive advantage if the smaller companies can't afford to pay and go out of business.
-
-
Tuesday 23rd September 2014 06:49 GMT vagabondo
Re: Class Action?
But not as good as the supposed public regulators (i.e. the patent offices) doing their job by actively investigating patent applications, and rejecting any that are do not demonstrate non-obvious novelty or supply sufficient detail to enable reproduction (including any that they do not understand).
Perhaps if the patent offices cann/will not employ examiners who are "experts in the field", they should insist that applications are written in comprehensible, plain language and published for a consultation period, classified according to the trade and sector affected. This would make it easier for trade magazines to draw them to the attention of those affected and their experts. The ability to be understood by the average "specialist journalist" would be a good test for comprehensibility (I am thinking of the "technology" reporters of the BBC, Guardian, Daily Mail, etc. being expected to understand the patent sufficiently to be able to reproduce the invention).
-
-
Tuesday 23rd September 2014 08:08 GMT Anonymous Coward
Crowdsource the USPTO, and make it look as bad as it is...
Many (most?) readers will be aware of StackExchange etc?
Who's heard of Ask Patents?
http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2012/09/askpatents-com-a-stack-exchange-to-prevent-bad-patents/
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2013/07/22.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/07/23/crowdsourcing-the-fight-against-bad-software-patents/
-
Tuesday 23rd September 2014 09:19 GMT Anonymous Coward
There are trolls and trolls...
"Rackspace just wishes that more companies would follow its example and fight patent trolls in the courts, rather than caving in."
When a company like Apple fills for laughable patents and love to be a patent bully, there is no hope for othes to follow the example...
-
-
Tuesday 23rd September 2014 11:00 GMT streaky
This Patent..
15. The system according to claim 14, wherein means for rotating comprises means for clicking and holding the window while dragging the window to the selected orientation.
16. The system according to claim 14, wherein means for rotating comprises means for rotating the window by predetermined increments.
17. The system according to claim 14, wherein means for rotating comprises means for toggling the window between two preselected orientations.
18. The system according to claim 14, wherein means for rotating comprises means for returning the window to a zero degree orientation.
I wouldn't say it's invalid, so much as stupid and not what modern phones/tablets do. If you go after a phone app developer and say "you're infringing" because the phone rotates it's screen automatically this patent doesn't apply at all, and to the extent it would it's Google's code that you have an issue with.
But nice job Rackspace, there needs to be a coalition of the willing to fight when it comes to stupid patent-but-don't-make companies that don't even understand the IP they have - and more importantly don't have.
-
Tuesday 23rd September 2014 13:03 GMT Javapapa
Proud to be a Rackspace customer
Texas history has a defining moment when Colonel Travis drew a line in the sand with his sword, allowing each volunteer to decide if they would stay and fight, or leave. The Alamo defenders, out numbered over 10 to 1, held off Santa Anna's army for 13 days, giving Sam Houston vital time to assemble his militia.
Rackspace is a Texas company.
Trolls, you are on notice.
-
Tuesday 23rd September 2014 13:05 GMT John Savard
A Pity
Actually, using an invalid patent to obtain payment should be treated as fraud - but in order to get settlements to be repaid, quite properly, a higher bar of proof is required - it would have to be proven that the company knew the patent was invalid. Otherwise, they could claim to have acted in good faith.
The patent office should never grant an invalid patent in the first place; checking for prior art and obviousness is their job.
-
-
Tuesday 23rd September 2014 19:04 GMT thedarke
No easy solution
But that would leave smaller companies and inventors without recourse when larger or more unscrupulous firms decide the just copy the idea.
The problem with patents isn't patents- it isn't even trolling of patents (which is where everyone is pushing their ire- even Rackspace have patents and are duty bound to enforce them under the 'use it or lose it' rule). The problem with Patents is those reviewing and granting them don't have enough education to perform in the modern world. Back when physical inventions (which is what Patents were created for) were demonstrable, it was relatively easy- since the dawn of software and incredibly complex hardware, it's become really difficult.
I do believe innovative software techniques should be patentable- rightly so to stop Google et al just copying technique that cost smaller firms most of their capital to design and implement. Equally- patents that apply to software should be reviewed by experts from that industry. The USPTO at the end of the day is a bunch of civil servants- civil servants rarely are the best of breed for their chosen profession- because the best tend to take the big private sector pay check. If, like standards bodies, the USPTO could appeal to a more learned audience for opinions on filings this would go away.
Recent changes have made it a lot harder to get dubious patents through- problem is we have a 20 year backlog of patents that should never have been granted in the first place- and that's where businesses should be encouraged to do exactly what Rackspace have done- review the merits of the claim. If the claim stands- it's not trolling, it's protecting IP in the same way as enforcing a copyright claim.
-
Tuesday 23rd September 2014 19:47 GMT Michael Wojcik
Re: No easy solution
The problem with Patents is those reviewing and granting them don't have enough education to perform in the modern world.
Even if they did, they certainly don't have the resources to do a thorough review of every patent application. The only ways we could fund a USPTO (for example) that could diligently examine all applications, or even the ones that made it past initial screening, would be to take funds from elsewhere (a political non-starter) or substantially increase fees, which would raise the barriers to entry even higher and put patents out of reach of small inventors.
There isn't any easy solution to the problem, and the various camps promoting one are ignorant, self-deceiving, or mendacious. Getting rid of patents, getting rid of NPEs, requiring closer scrutiny - they all have bad consequences for entrepreneurs and small inventors.
Complex systems are complex.
-
Wednesday 24th September 2014 02:16 GMT Oninoshiko
Re: No easy solution
There is no "use it or lose it" rule for patents. There is no "use it or lose it" rule for copyrights. There is such a rule for trademarks. This is what is wrong with the term "intellectual property" and whoever came up with it should be shot. It's patents, trademarks, and copyrights. All are governed by different laws.
Requiring a working demonstration of the device is not hard either. If you have REALLY invented it, you can demonstrate it. As far as software patents go, the reality is, they fit in two categories, "purely mathematical and obvious to anyone versed in the art" and "purely mathematical." Neither should be permitted, the first for two reasons, the second for one.
I'd like to see what you think has made it "a lot harder to get dubious patents."
-
-
-
Wednesday 24th September 2014 22:10 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: No Easy Solution
Patents have absolutely nothing to do with innovation, they are a monopoly granted to the person who makes it first in front of the King (USPTO) with a sufficiently large bribe.
Unless you were raised in a cave by wolves then all your ideas are derivative (and time sensitive)
If you don't want people copying your wonderful, unique and non-derivative ideas then keep them to yourself.
Do you really think that on a planet of 7bn plus people that no one else is thinking of the same thing ?
-
Friday 26th September 2014 04:31 GMT Wibble
Now recover their expenses from the Patent Office?
One would think that logically the Patent Office is at fault for issuing such a trivial patent in the first place. Shirley Rackspace could make a case for recovering their legal expenses from the US Patent Office as it's their "incompetence" which lead to this case being brought in the first case?
Maybe then the Patent Office might actually reject more "patents" at source.