24 ms·
Angry Birds Maker Sued for Patent Violation
- sorbus 15y agoBy Lodsys, of course.
- dpcan 15y agoDoes anyone know how the patents were violated? As in, what is actually being done that was "invented" by Lodsys so that other developers can either avoid it altogether, or know if they need to license something.
- roc 15y agoAs practical matter, many of these patents are so incredibly broad that you can't actually create a modern piece of software without winding up in the grey area of possibly infringing on one patent or another. As a legal matter, if you have a policy/history of proactively searching for patents, when (almost inevitably) someone alleges infringement, they can assert that because of your policy you must have seen their patent and thus infringed willfully, opening yourself up to treble damages and putting you in the position of having to prove a negative. Any IP lawyer will advise that inventors should never look.
- dpcan 15y agoBut what did they do that infringed? Everybody always replies the same way, "it's broad", "there's prior art", etc, but does anybody ACTUALLY know how a game like Angry Birds specifically infringed on these patents in such a way that they will have to pay royalties?
- Natsu 15y agoTFA doesn't give the patent number, if you want to know you'll have to dig up whatever they've filed with the courts. I'd start looking in EDT; I'm just guessing, but it's where all the trolls file for quick, predictable payouts. All the article says is that the patent allegedly covers buying new levels from within the game. So the patent is probably some generic nonsense about a method of having an ordinary computer do ordinary things. But nobody prior to them patented or mentioned doing those particular ordinary things on a computer, so it's not considered legally obvious, no matter how much it makes us want to bang our heads on a wall. EDIT: I should mention that we won't know if they infringed at all (or whether Lodsys has a valid patent) unless it goes all the way through the system. Depending on what's being demanded, they may find it cheaper to settle, even if the patent is garbage and they may do so as a pure business decision.
- reemrevnivek 15y agoWhere is EDT? That means "Eastern Daylight Time" to me.
- crb 15y agoThe Eastern District of Texas: "a haven for patent pirates". http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech-Software/wtr_16280,300,p1.html?a=f http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech-Software/wtr_16280,...
- hornokplease 15y agoI believe that it refers to the Eastern District of Texas, where many patent cases are filed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_Texas#Patent_litigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_fo...
- Natsu 15y agoYou are correct, that's the district I was referring to.
- greatreorx 15y agoHere is the complaint that lists the patent numbers. http://www.scribd.com/doc/60587096/11-07-21-Lodsys-Amended-Complaint http://www.scribd.com/doc/60587096/11-07-21-Lodsys-Amended-C...
- joe_the_user 15y agoI think the point is that at the time they file for patent violation, the patent holders don't have to say what part of the patent is violated (edit: except general things like patent number). Troll: "We think you violated our patent, pay or else" Company: "But how?" Troll: "Look at the patent, it's not our job to tell you what you did wrong, in fact, it is our interests not to tell you" Company: "But the patent is completely vague, it could be anything" Troll: "Ah hah hah hah... Still want to go to court to fight this? "
- dpcan 15y agoWell, say the patent goes to court and Rovio begins to argue that they did not violate the patent, what would they say? This is my question, what specifically is violating? If they have to prove that they are not violating, what will they say?
- armandososa 15y agoThe ability to buy more levels inside the game.
- dpcan 15y agoDo they do this? I thought there was a free version and a paid version, and in the paid version, don't you get all the levels?
- hn_decay 15y agohttp://www.google.com/patents/about/7620565_Customer_based_product_design_mo.html?id=TGnVAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents/about/7620565_Customer_based_p...
- Spyro7 15y agoI'll be completely honest. Prior to this I disliked patent trolls in a sort of abstract way, but now, I have a visceral feeling of disgust just thinking about patent trolls. Lodsys in particular seems to have no shame. I wonder if a few more of these higher profile lawsuits might pull the general public's attention from whatever the latest reality TV show is. Maybe then the political system could do something useful to stop the patent lawsuit insanity.
- biturd 15y agoNot until Lodsys goes after Kim Kardashian for violation of a patent they hold on how to screw a lid on perfume. As soon as someone breaks away from tech and takes it to pop culture, we may actually see some changes. Don't mess with the publics ability to indulge in kids in tiaras or the brand of large booty they are into or there will be outrage to answer to.
- phunel 15y agoWouldn't count on it: http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2011-07-21-kim-kardashian-old-navy_n.htm http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2011-07-21-kim-kar...
- alecbenzer 15y agoI think that phenomenon might have more to do with the fact that the general public doesn't understand technology well enough to know when enforcing a patent on something (or granting one) is and isn't ridiculous. I forget the details, and I might be wrong, but I think with the whole Microsoft XML file format suit thing, the suit boiled down to a company claiming they had a patent on using XML for document type file formats. But that's the whole point of XML, to be used as a general purpose markup language, to markup whatever you want. It's ridiculous to attempt to patent that when it's the whole point of XML to begin with. But the general public doesn't really know what XML is or what its for, so no one realizes how crazy it is. If, on the other hand, someone tried to patent putting a doorknob on a door that leads into a postal office, as opposed to some other kind of building, everyone would realize how ridiculous it was. Because people know what doors and doorknobs and postal offices are.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- Shenglong 15y agoUS Courts need a script: if(plaintiff == Lodsys){ dismiss; } Lodsys cases are the most BS cases I've ever seen. Unlike large evil corporations who are at least contributing some sort of innovation, all Lodsys manages to do is stifle innovation, and screw over the entire public. Too bad we can't file a class-action suit against Lodsys for emotional damages.
- fragsworth 15y ago> all Lodsys manages to do is stifle innovation Lodsys has been suing for such absurd things that maybe they are indirectly contributing to the downfall of the patent system as a result of public uproar.
- sukuriant 15y agoSo ... keep at it Lodsys! You're doing EXACTLY what we need to happen before we can revolutionize the system!
- schrototo 15y agoWhat's interesting to note is that, as revealed on an episode of NPR's This American Life [1], Lodsys has the same exact address (down to the room number!) of Oasis Research, which is known to have a "back-end arrangement" with Intellectual Ventures. So Lodsys is pretty much a front for Myhrvold and his despicable company. [1] http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/25/138576167/when-patents-attack http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/25/138576167/when-pat... (this is pretty much a full transcript of the show)
- pyre 15y agoIs it a physical address or one of those "2000 companies registered at the same address for tax reasons" deals?
- schrototo 15y agoIt's a physical address [1] and in the radio show they actually visit it. They describe the location as being a little eerie: The office was in a corridor where all the other doors looked exactly the same —locked, nameplates over the door, no light coming out. It was a corridor of silent, empty offices with names like "Software Rights Archive," and "Bulletproof Technology of Texas." [1] 104 E. Houston street, suite 190, Marshall, Texas
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- loire280 15y agoHopefully Rovio is big and well-connected enought to fight back, and maybe make a legal dent in this problem. This weekend's This American Life was an hour long feature on the software patent mess. It's a good intro to the situation, especially to the non-tech public. Share with your friends (and send donations as a thank-you!). http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w...
- blutonium 15y agoThey added EA, Atari, Square Enix and Take-Two as well. http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/lodsys-sues-rovio-over-angry-birds-for.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/lodsys-sues-rovio-ov...
- babebridou 15y agoMine patents. Build grunts. Give all grunts the same unoccupied office suite in Texas. Sell patent to grunts with revenue sharing clause. Select a grunt, scroll to target, right-click.
- cridal 15y agoBottom-eating scum...
- monochromatic 15y ago1. Post on HN about evil software patents. 2. Receive karma.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- monochromatic 15y ago1. Point this fact out. 2. Lose karma.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- kbutler 15y agoI'd like to know the final karma balance between the grandparent and the parent comments. One more reason I wish hn still displayed points.
- monochromatic 15y agoIt's not pretty, I'll tell you that. HN doesn't tell me how low my first comment went (it just appears to be pegged at -4), and my second one is at -2.
- biturd 15y agoThis is going to be the case that breaks the USPTO system to bits. Either that, or no new companies are going to release in the US, and instead create shells in other countries, which will only hurt our economy more.
- shoota 15y agoBy selling inside of the United States that makes them subject to US patent laws. That is why Rovio is subject to this lawsuit despite being a Finnish company.
- lutorm 15y agoBut if they are Finnish, how is someone going to their (Finnish) website and buying something different from someone physically traveling to Finland and buying it? They don't have a 'physical presence' in the US, so by the same rationale that US companies don't have to charge sales tax in other states it seems they should also not be bound by this. If I make a website containing content illegal in <some country>, am I committing a crime in <some country> if someone from there looks at my page?
- pyre 15y agoAccording to the Federal government? Yes. "US Smash!" and all that jazz.
- dangrossman 15y agoYes you are. A court in Italy found several Google executives, that had never stepped foot in the country, personally criminally liable for a Google Video video that violated Italian law. Those execs wouldn't want to travel to Italy while that ruling stood, if it doesn't still. http://www.thedomains.com/2010/02/24/italy-finds-3-google-execs-guilty-criminally-for-online-video-posted-on-google-video/ http://www.thedomains.com/2010/02/24/italy-finds-3-google-ex...
- reemrevnivek 15y agoWhat makes Angry Birds the case that "breaks the USPTO system to bits"? There have been plenty of similarly (if not more) egregious, costly, and publicized cases.
- danmaz74 15y agoThe real problem is that you should only be able to patent a solution to a difficult problem, while these "broad" patents often look more like you are patenting the problem itself, so that any solution is covered. This is totally against the original idea of patents (either software or hardware).
- gnaritas 15y ago> The real problem is that you should only be able to patent a solution Not just any solution, a non-obvious solution. If presented with a new problem, as tech often is, you can think up a solution in a day, it shouldn't' be patent-able because others are going to come up with that same solution. The one click check out is an example of this.
- nitrogen 15y agoI've heard it argued that simply thinking of a new problem should be sufficient for patent protection, though I strongly disagree with that position. Put differently, identifying the problem can be significantly more difficult than creating the solution, but I still think patents should cover non-obvious solutions to any problem, rather than any solution to non-obvious problems.
- danmaz74 15y agoAbsolutely, only a non-obvious solution to a problem should be patentable. But if they at least only granted patents to specific almost-obvious solutions, and not just to any solution (which is the same as patenting the problem), it would be a little better: You could at least try to find a different solution...
- kjames 15y agoI'm sorry, but how did Lodsys lose out here?
- siphr 15y agoThe greed machine is at it again. This is exactly why I hate patents. Innovate or take a seat and be entertained. Do not leech or you'll bring the whole system down.
- cmelbye 15y agoAre there any representatives or senators working on fixing this yet? Is there a petition that we can sign? Some kind of site to raise awareness?
- sixtofour 15y agoYou can write your members, and maybe the members on the two Commerce Committees, but I don't think Congress ever met a monied patent holder they didn't like. My impression in the last five to ten years is that the sleeping bag is looking like stuffed sausage with all the members and IP interests squirming around in there.
- SideSwipe 15y agoThis patent crap is getting ridiculous. We should create a script to auto-generate Patent Violation Notices in masse to be sent to patent trolls. Business should be about creating value, not leeching and hurting others to steal their value and make it your own.
- Vivtek 15y agoWell, here's the problem with that: patent trolls aren't actually operating any systems. Thus they are not violating patents - it's an asymmetric game that the troll can't lose. That's why it's so pernicious.
- sixtofour 15y agoI've been hoping for a patent frenzy for some time, where all the major holders sue all the major violators. Maybe freedom and innovation will rise out of the ashes.
- motters 15y agoIn an ideal world commonsense would prevail and there would be no such thing as software patents, but in the real world perhaps a software patent meltdown of the kind you describe would focus minds.
- indrax 15y agoI thought this was going to be about a method for destroying pigs in structures by accelerating birds through the use of an elastic or spring-loaded device.
- shareme 15y agoRemember folks.. MS has been using scare tactics for 20 years to keep firms form choosing Linux..with those efforts being dismal failures and at times including patent trolling..this is the new MS Patent trolling chapter of Linux..
- pyre 15y agoHuh? iOS runs on Linux?
- mattvot 15y agoI don't tend to agree with groups like Lulzec and Anonymous, but please think about Lodsys as a target.
- dexen 15y agoThat's a merry proposal, but! The real problem is that one can't actually steal a patent (or copyright). It's virtual property. And there is no closely guarded secret, either; quite the opposite: a patent is published openly as part of patent process. Downloading any documents from Lodsys and disseminating them on the 'net won't hurt them in any way. Also, I doubt there are any interesting technical documents on this invention (or any other invention for that matter) on Lodsys' computers ;-)
- invisiblefunnel 15y agoA few internal emails detailing possible corruption would be a start.
- yason 15y agoI realized one point regarding patents that I haven't thought of before. Patents shouldn't be transferable or saleable. A patent should be nominated to its inventor personally and for a company to profit from it they would have to connect with that person. They could employ him or otherwise compensate him for being able to do things that were patented. This would diminish possibilities for all kinds of trickery and return the power back to the actual inventor. A company who wishes to invest in patents would have to compensate these inventors more than fairly to reach an agreement where the inventor only licenses the patent to that company. Futile, bogus, or useless patents wouldn't be paid for so nobody wouldn't bother to file them. Inventors would have a big financial incentive to invent things that are truly good enough to be worth somebody paying for them.
- extension 15y agoI don't see how that would particularly help. If patents couldn't be sold, they would instead be licensed under highly permissive and exclusive terms. The effect would be the same and it would simply add needless complexity to the system. Complexity is largely the cause of the existing problem.
- monochromatic 15y agoI'm not sure how taking away an inventor's current right to sell his patent counts as "return[ing] the power back to the actual inventor." Also, under current law, an exclusive licensee can be granted the right to sue on a patent. So you'd have to change that part of the law as well, for your scheme to actually change anything.
- ww520 15y agoThis is an excellent point. This gives the inventor sufficient protection, and lower the incentive to hog patents by non-inventors. May be a gradual degradation would be good. Any non-original inventor held patent expires in 1/3 of the time.
- yellowbkpk 15y agoBefore anyone makes a comment here I implore you to listen to this past weekend's This American Life. Here's a handy link: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w... More on-topic: they finish off the show by pointing out that Lodsys's registered address (104 E Houston St. #190) is the same as Oasis Research, a front company for Intellectual Ventures: the ultimate patent troll and the focus of the entire show.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- nikcub 15y agoA day after the big news in tech was about patents, the TAL episode and Intellectual Ventures and they pull another crazy patent lawsuit, just to drive the point home. They are making themselves a big target. Those that didn't really follow patent news previously likely all know now who Lodsys/IV etc. are and what they are up to. I hope these cases lead to reform of the entire system.
- domador 15y agoThe next Rovio game I'd like to see: "Angry Nerds", where you hurl enraged developers at patent trolls and the structures under which they take cover (causing very satisfying damage, of course).
- dangrossman 15y agohttp://www.atlassian.com/en/angrynerds http://www.atlassian.com/en/angrynerds
- extension 15y agoRovio is in a unique position to effect change here. They should yank Angry Birds from US app stores and say "sorry America, you can't play because your patent system sucks". That would create the kind of mass upset that might actually get something done about this problem. Giving in to Lodsys might make fiscal sense in the short term, but they would be painting a target on themselves for the snowballing patent troll industry. All genuine technology companies, but especially those at the formative stages like Rovio, need to think about the future health of their industry. Don't negotiate with terrorists.
- timmaxw 15y agoThe problem is with the US patent system, not with the patent trolls. The benefit to society of granting a patent is that it gives companies an incentive to do R&D. The cost to society of granting a patent is that other companies have to pay money to use the same idea. In a healthy patent system, the average benefit of a patent is equal to the average cost of a patent. If the average benefit is higher than the average cost, the Patent Office should be more lenient in granting patents, or should lengthen the term of the patent. The former solution would increase the number of patents, but the new ones would have lower average benefit. The latter solution would reduce the average cost of a patent. Likewise, if the average benefit is lower than the average cost, the Patent Office should be stricter in granting patents or should shorten the term of the patent. The average benefit from a software patent is quite low; most software patents are for an obvious solution to an uncommon problem, not for a clever solution to a common problem. The average cost for a software patent is (currently) pretty low too, because patent holders usually don't assert their rights; but if patent holders asserted their rights whenever they could, the average cost would be very high. The solution is for the US Patent Office to be much stricter about assigning software patents. In a healthy patent system, patent trolls aren't a bad thing. Patent trolls raise the price of patents by buying and using them; that increases the incentives to do R&D. Since in a healthy patent system, the cost to society of the patent troll asserting its patent rights is equal to the benefits from the R&D that gets done, that isn't a problem.
- nitrogen 15y agoThe problem is with the US patent system, not with the patent trolls. Without addressing any of the other interesting points you raised, I have to rebut this one. I'll start by rewording the sentence to be more accurate by my judgment: The problem is with the US patent system, and with the patent trolls. I base my argument on the notion that ethics and morality exist independent of any legal system. Whether what the trolls are doing is legal is irrelevant; they are acting against the interests of society at large and small inventors in particular, under the guise of helping small inventors. Thus, what they are doing is unethical, and they are therefore part of the problem.
- MrVitaliy 15y agoIt is obvious that the overwhelming majority of HN dislikes software patents. Hence, links like these are simply religious arguments. If Angry Birds wins this case, people will complain that given enough money companies can ignore laws. If Angry Birds loses, people keep complaining about patent trolls.
- artsrc 15y agoI guess there are a few kinds of arguments about the right approach. Legal, economic and religious. At lest the religious argument are the one I value most. One concept is that ideas should be free. Another is that ideas are property which should be respected. The legal argument is that it is difficult to create independently many kinds of software without infringing some patent. This implies that patents are being granted on things that are obvious to those skilled in the art. I.e. most patents are probably not valid. An alternatively the legal argument is that software is mathematics and mathematics is not legally patentable. And the economic argument is that these monopolies are used by established players to stifle innovation, for example the history of flight in Europe and the US, where the Wright brothers patents killed innovation. I think it is a really hard issue, because I don't think it can be determined well with any system of governance that we have. The voters are not well informed so democracy won't work. Lobbyist and experts represent established monopolies which are not innovative, so other systems won't either.