
Angry Birds Maker Sued for Patent Violation - dean
http://mashable.com/2011/07/25/angry-birds-lawsuit/?WT.mc_id=obinsite
======
Spyro7
I'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.

~~~
tzs
Considering that one of the biggest names in computing in the eyes of the
public (IBM) in extremely pro-software patents, that's not likely to happen.
IBM says:

    
    
       Given the reality that software source code is human
       readable, and object code can be reverse engineered,
       it is difficult for software developers to resort to
       secrecy. Thus, without patent protection, the incentives
       to innovate in the field of software are significantly
       reduced. Patent protection has promoted the free sharing
       of source code on a patentee’s terms—which has fueled the
       explosive growth of open source software development.
    

That's from their brief to the Supreme Court for the Bilski case.

~~~
modeless
Patent protection has fueled the growth of open source? That's the funniest
thing I've read all year.

~~~
tzs
Then you should get a copy of the full brief and read it, as you'll probably
get a good laugh from more of it, like where they say software patents
encourage the adoption of standards on the web and net.

------
loire280
Hopefully 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/w...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack)

~~~
babebridou
Mine 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.

------
yellowbkpk
Before 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/w...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-
archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack)

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.

------
yason
I 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.

~~~
monochromatic
I'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.

------
danmaz74
The 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
> 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
I'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
Absolutely, 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...

------
extension
Rovio 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.

------
Shenglong
US 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.

~~~
schrototo
What'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-
pat...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/25/138576167/when-patents-
attack) (this is pretty much a full transcript of the show)

~~~
pyre
Is it a physical address or one of those "2000 companies registered at the
same address for tax reasons" deals?

~~~
schrototo
It'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

------
timmaxw
The 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
_The 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.

------
sixtofour
I'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
In 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.

------
domador
The 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
<http://www.atlassian.com/en/angrynerds>

------
dpcan
Does 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
As 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
But 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
TFA 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
Where is EDT? That means "Eastern Daylight Time" to me.

~~~
hornokplease
I 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_fo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_Texas#Patent_litigation)

~~~
Natsu
You are correct, that's the district I was referring to.

------
mattvot
I don't tend to agree with groups like Lulzec and Anonymous, but please think
about Lodsys as a target.

~~~
dexen
That'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
A few internal emails detailing possible corruption would be a start.

------
indrax
I 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.

------
SideSwipe
This 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
Well, 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.

------
cmelbye
Are 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
You 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.

------
MrVitaliy
It 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
I 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.

------
sorbus
By Lodsys, of course.

------
nikcub
A 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.

------
biturd
This 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
By 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
But 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?

~~~
dangrossman
Yes 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-
ex...](http://www.thedomains.com/2010/02/24/italy-finds-3-google-execs-guilty-
criminally-for-online-video-posted-on-google-video/)

------
siphr
The 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.

------
cridal
Bottom-eating scum...

------
kjames
I'm sorry, but how did Lodsys lose out here?

------
shareme
Remember 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
Huh? iOS runs on Linux?

------
monochromatic
1\. Post on HN about evil software patents.

2\. Receive karma.

~~~
monochromatic
1\. Point this fact out.

2\. Lose karma.

~~~
kbutler
I'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
It'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.

