Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Paul Allen's Lawsuit Against Apple Faces Setback Over Lack of Specificity

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,968
39,981



144307-paul_allen.jpg


Back in August, we reported that Interval Licensing, a patent licensing firm run by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, had filed suit against Apple, Google, and a number of other prominent technology companies over alleged infringement of several patents related to e-commerce and Web search technologies.

In an update on the case, The Wall Street Journal reports that Allen's firm has just been dealt a setback, with a federal judge Friday dismissing the complaint over its lack of specificity regarding exactly which products are alleged to have infringed the patents.
Google and Apple filed motions to dismiss the complaint because it doesn't specify which of the defendants' goods or services infringe the Interval patents.

"The allegations in the complaint are spartan," Judge Pechman wrote, siding with the defendants.

Standards for specificity of allegations in civil cases have been tightened in recent years as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, said Alan Fisch, a partner at the law firm Kaye Scholer LLP in Washington.
Click to expand...
The setback appears to only be a temporary one, however, as Interval Licensing intends to refile its complaint in the very near future with the required specificity standards met. The judge has given Interval Licensing until December 28th to do so.

The suit is one of many currently being faced by Apple, which has been reported to be the most-sued technology company over the last several years.

Article Link: Paul Allen's Lawsuit Against Apple Faces Setback Over Lack of Specificity
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2010/12/13/paul-allens-lawsuit-against-apple-faces-setback-over-lack-of-specificity/
? lacks what now in English i guess that means they didn't want to show all the details i guess??
 
To bad the judge didn't/can't throw the book at the law firm that brought this obvious 'fishing expedition' into the legal system.

Fine Allen and censure the law firm. Threaten disbarment for those that actually stepped into the court with this stinking pile of 'show me the money'...

It sounds like extortion and it shouldn't go unpunished...

For if the bar is so lowered then everything that we use and depend on could be sued out of existence...

And no, I don't care who is suing whom. If you don't have 'the goods' to prove your point and the case is dismissed then there ought to be a downside to bringing such refuse to the courts begging for money.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8C148)

Paul Allen. Didn't that guy get his head chopped off in American Psycho?
 
ModestForumName said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8C148)

Paul Allen. Didn't that guy get his head chopped off in American Psycho?
Click to expand...

paul allan seems like a filthy yellow teethed old troll........... rather spend money on new bright white teeth i say!
:D
 
WiiDSmoker said:
Yet you would be the first in line to cheer on Apple when they are suing someone for patent infrigement. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Rubbish. Apple doesn't patent sue when an actual on-the-market product does not exist, unlike Mr. Allen. Apple ≠ patent troll.

PinkyMacGodess said:
I think he made his money out of Microsoft years ago. Is he even tied to Microstuff anymore?
Click to expand...

He must be, as Microsoft is not named in the lawsuit but is almost certainly violating these same phantom patents.
 
All I have to say is that patents were made part of US law to stimulate and protect innovation. When you have patent trolls amassing patents that they are not actually implementing in products just so they can sue those that do implement them, then you are not stimulating innovation, but stifling it.

Patent trolls are not the only problem. Massive corporations amass huge portfolios of patents that basically carve out entire sectors of the tech industry for themselves and those they cross license to (i.e.: other massive corporations). Small-time software developers don't stand a chance at innovating anything without getting sued for stumbling onto one of the mines in the patent mine field of the massive corporations.

Allen has now been on both sides of this. He has gone from executive at a leading technology company to patent troll.

Something has to be done to prevent patent trolling against the big-time innovators at the large corporations AND to give the independent software developer a chance to innovate without fearing the corporate patent mine field. I just don't think patents are doing what they were intended to do anymore.
 
BC2009 said:
All I have to say is that patents were made part of US law to stimulate and protect innovation. When you have patent trolls amassing patents that they are not actually implementing in products just so they can sue those that do implement them, then you are not stimulating innovation, but stifling it.

Patent trolls are not the only problem. Massive corporations amass huge portfolios of patents that basically carve out entire sectors of the tech industry for themselves and those they cross license to (i.e.: other massive corporations). Small-time software developers don't stand a chance at innovating anything without getting sued for stumbling onto one of the mines in the patent mine field of the massive corporations.

Allen has now been on both sides of this. He has gone from executive at a leading technology company to patent troll.

Something has to be done to prevent patent trolling against the big-time innovators at the large corporations AND to give the independent software developer a chance to innovate without fearing the corporate patent mine field. I just don't think patents are doing what they were intended to do anymore.
Click to expand...

Logic! :)
 
People like Paul Allen and Nathan Myhrvold from Microsoft are complete tools!!

There not happy that there already multi-billionaires, and since they have never had a creative bone in there collective bodies instead of creating technology they decided to buy patents that others invented and then go around and sue people all day to make more money.. There corporate vampires!!!
 
BC2009 said:
All I have to say is that patents were made part of US law to stimulate and protect innovation. When you have patent trolls amassing patents that they are not actually implementing in products just so they can sue those that do implement them, then you are not stimulating innovation, but stifling it.

Patent trolls are not the only problem. Massive corporations amass huge portfolios of patents that basically carve out entire sectors of the tech industry for themselves and those they cross license to (i.e.: other massive corporations). Small-time software developers don't stand a chance at innovating anything without getting sued for stumbling onto one of the mines in the patent mine field of the massive corporations.

Allen has now been on both sides of this. He has gone from executive at a leading technology company to patent troll.

Something has to be done to prevent patent trolling against the big-time innovators at the large corporations AND to give the independent software developer a chance to innovate without fearing the corporate patent mine field. I just don't think patents are doing what they were intended to do anymore.
Click to expand...

and yet we are always seeing new products come to market from what is essentially a few guys in a garage
 
This is not a big deal. There was a fairly recent change in law - the two cases are Twombly and Iqbal - and many courts still don't require much specificity. They'll amend the complaint and continue onward.
 
Sabenth said:
? lacks what now in English i guess that means they didn't want to show all the details i guess??
Click to expand...

You can read the details at www.groklaw.net. Defendants in this case were AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo! and Youtube. Seems most of the work was done by Google. And you are right. Mr. Allen told these eleven companies that their products and websites are infringing on four patents, without saying for example how an Apple product like an iPod Shuffle would infringe in the same way as a copier that you buy from Staples.
 
"The suit is one of many currently being faced by Apple, which has been reported to be the most-sued technology company over the last several years."

Not too surprised at that part :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back