Blackboard. Source: shonk on Flickr. License: CC BY 2.0.

The Washington Business Journal reports that all 38 contested claims in Blackboard’s e-learning patent have been invalidated on appeal of the Desire2Learn infringement case.

“Blackboard is obviously disappointed with the Federal Circuit’s decision and will seek further judicial review,” said Matthew Small, chief business officer for Blackboard (NASDAQ:BBBB). “Meanwhile, claims 39-44 of the 138 patent remain valid and enforceable. These claims were not at issue in the appeal.”

Even though Blackboard won just more than $3 million in damages from a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Texas in February 2008, that court also found 35 of 38 claims of the patent to be invalid.

A good victory against bad patents, even if a number of claims remain valid. Blackboard is still proprietary and still has a horrible UI, so if you are still in the process of ditching it, I would continue to do so.

• Washington Business Journal [Print Version]
• Slashdot

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office seal - Credit: U.S. government (Public domain) http://www.uspto.gov/

The nature of innovation and technology has changed a lot but patent law may not be keeping up with the changes. In this Wall Street Journal opinion piece, L. Gordon Crovitz, argues that patent reform is long due because in their current form they maybe causing more harm than good for innovators.

The last time the Supreme Court heard a case on what kinds of innovations deserved patents was in 1981 — the year IBM launched the first personal computer using a disk operating system from a young Microsoft. The Internet as we know it was still years in the future.

This month, the Supreme Court agreed to reconsider what can be patented. At stake are tens of thousands of existing patents and a rethinking of why we have patent protections in the first place.

I hope the Supreme Court opens its eyes to the disaster that is patent law in the United States. Hopefully this also the beginning of the end of software and business methods patents.

Why Technologists Want Fewer Patents

Donald Knuth: Mathematical Ideas, or Algorithms, Should Not Be Patented

Broken Window - Credit: sunshine rabbit on Flickr (CC BY-SA)

The judge has ordered Microsoft to pay $388,000,000 for infringing on a Uniloc patent dealing with activation.

A jury has ordered Microsoft to pay $388M to security software firm Uniloc, who alleged back in 2003 that Microsoft infringed on the firm’s patents for Windows Activation, one of the most horrible features ever.

One way to look at this—the hasty, vindictive, techno-populist way—is to see this whole thing as some kind of cosmic rebalancing, in which Microsoft is finally paying a huge, literal price for years of subjecting us to broken product activation runarounds in virtually every major piece of software they’ve released in the last eight years. Their 30 days is up, their trial period (ha!) over, etc etc etc.

The irony is delicious.

• Gizmodo
• WSJ

Computerworld reports that TomTom has countersued Microsoft for patent infringement. The patents in question are implemented in Microsoft Streets and Trips.

In a suit filed earlier this week, TomTom alleges that Microsoft infringes on four patents in Microsoft Streets and Trips. The product is mapping software that runs on computers and can be used with a small GPS receiver that connects to a laptop. TomTom is asking for triple damages for willful infringement, since it says it had notified Microsoft about its alleged infringement.

Microsoft said it was reviewing TomTom’s filing and that it remains committed to a licensing solution and has been for more than a year.

This could very well be why it took Microsoft so long to sue someone for the patents infringed by the kernel Linux: fear of a countersuit.

• Computerworld [Print Version]
• Slashdot

iPhone ebook - Credit: tsmall on Flickr (CC BY-SA)

MONEC Holding Ltd, a Swiss firm, filed a lawsuit against Apple for promoting the iPhone as a touchscreen ebook reader.

A Switzerland-based communication firm on Monday filed a lawsuit against Apple, alleging that the corporation is committing patent infringement, unfair trade practices, monopolization and tortious interference by promoting the iPhone as a touchscreen book reader.

In its 7-page complaint [pdf], Monec Holding Ltd, a business that develops and markets data transmission tools for mobile electronics, cites a patent it filed seven years ago titled “Electronic device, preferably an electronic book.” The patent describes a lightweight electronic device with a touchscreen LCD display for reading e-books. The firm claims Apple is violating the patent by distributing reader applications through the App Store — thereby endorsing the iPhone as an eBook reader.

How dare people be able to read things on the iPhone!  There should only be shapes and colors!

• Wired
• Apple Insider

Computerworld reports that Microsoft has long been signing patent agreements with companies that use the FAT file system, even companies that use GNU+Linux (despite GPLv3 violations), long before their TomTom lawsuit.

When asked specifically if “there are companies using Linux and open-source software, which have signed FAT patent cross-licensing agreements, such as the ones, which TomTom has refused to agree to?” Gutierrez replied, “Yes, other companies have signed FAT patent licenses, both in the context of patent cross licensing agreements and other licensing arrangements.”

Why haven’t you heard of this before? It’s because Microsoft and the companies that have put these licenses under NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreements). So, while we now know there are at least 18 FAT LFN licensees, we still don’t know which companies have signed such deals.

It’s a classic legal dilemma: sign patent deals and risk a GPLv3 lawsuit, or don’t sign patent deals and risk a Microsoft lawsuit. I still don’t understand why these companies can’t just remove the supposedly patented material and avoid the issue entirely. It’s not like FAT is the only file system out there.

• Computerworld [Print Version]
• Digg

TomTom. Source: Mr ATM on Flickr. License: CC-BY 2.0

TechFlash reports that Microsoft has sued GPS manufacturer TomTom for patent infringement. Some of these patents have to do with TomTom’s implementation of Linux.

Five of the patents in dispute relate to in-car navigation technologies, while the other three involve file-management techniques. Gutierrez said Microsoft has reached licensing agreements with with other in-car navigation vendors over the same patents, and it remains open to “quickly resolving” the TomTom dispute through licensing.

Microsoft has said previously that Linux and other open-source programs violate more than 200 of its patents — elevating the tension that has long existed between Microsoft and the open-source community. Asked if this TomTom case is the start of a broader legal campaign over those alleged violations, Gutierrez said no.

Well, we’ll have to just wait and see.

• TechFlash [Print version]
• Slashdot

Troll - Credit: pagedooley on Flickr (CC BY)

CNNMoney.com reports that a consortium of companies called the Open Invention Network has launched a Web site that publicities software developments so that patent trolls will have a harder time launching frivolous lawsuits.

The most novel feature of the new program, to be known as Linux Defenders, will be its call to independent open-source software developers all over the world to start submitting their new software inventions to Linux Defenders (Web site due to be operational Tuesday) so that the group’s attorneys and engineers can, for no charge, help shape, structure, and document the invention in the form of a “defensive publication.”

Linux Defenders will then also see to it that the publication, duly attributing authorship of the invention to the developer who submitted it, is filed on the IP.com Web site, a database used by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and other patent examiners throughout the world when they are trying to determine whether a proposed patent is truly novel, as any patentable invention is supposed to be.

In effect, the defensive-publications initiative mounts a preemptive attack upon those who would try to patent purported software inventions that are not truly novel — i.e., innovations that are already known and in use, though no one may have ever previously bothered to document them, let alone obtain a patent on them, a process usually requiring the hiring of attorneys as well as payment of significant filing fees.

Among the usual suspects (IBM, Red Hat, etc.), OIM also includes Phillips and Sony.  I guess the concern of patent trolling gives these companies a common enemy.  The Linux Foundation and the Software Freedom Law Center are co-sponsoring this as well.

• CNNMoney.com Legal Pad
• Linux Defenders
• Slashdot

Hypocrite - Credit: brettlider on Flickr (CC BY-SA)

An interesting article at Ars Technica states that Article One Partners should try busting their own patents.

Founder and patent attorney Cheryl Milone thought the idea was so good she’s—wait for it—filed an application for a patent on it. The submission to the U.S. Patent Office describes a method for:

a. displaying on a computer network for access by a plurality of information providers, i. an information request, and ii. a description of compensation for at least one of said information providers who provides information responsive to said information request

The application goes on to describe a Byzantine series of variations on how to compensate “information providers” and how to make money off the information provided—by auctioning it off, say, or by investing in the competitors of a company holding an invalid patent.

But there does seem to be a fair amount of “prior art” here. The Patent Office itself runs an online effort called Peer-to-Patent that seeks to crowdsource scrutiny of applications. (One that, it may be worth noting, is likely to fare less well if researchers with relevant expertise are selling their information to Article One.)

…

Oh, and this one’s free, Article One: We’ll take the $50k next time.

I thought a second post would be better than an update to the first.  What are your alls thoughts on this?  This is quite saddening.

• Ars Technica

Article One Partners - Credit: articleonepartners.com

A new organization that seeks to get rid of certain patents has launched.  Article One Partners offers bounties on different patents and through crowd-sourcing, plans on finding prior art.

Strong Patents Drive True Innovation

The Article One Partners community strives to restore the patent system to its original intent of granting exclusive rights for true innovation, while promoting the progress of science and technology through open sharing of invention. To this goal, every patent that can be invalidated should be invalidated.

Through discovering prior art, Article One provides evidence to the market to potentially reduce unfair monopolies and overly broad patents. Patent claims for unique innovations are intrinsically strengthened when our Advisors’ comprehensive global search does not uncover prior art. Stronger patents enable the inventor community to commercialize their inventions with greater confidence. Reducing invalid patents encourages open sharing of the science and technology that drives innovation and new research opportunities.

What a good idea.  I hope they are successful.

• PRNewswire
• Article One Partners
• Slashdot