Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It means what it means. Allen didn't provide details. He claimed they violated his patents but didn't spell it out.
In these types of cases you have to tell not only which patent but exactly how it was violated. What program, what feature etc
Allen is being a chance to provide the details, but it is no promise he will win. There a clauses in patent law that allow for prior art and even major improvement. Say for example that his alert patent is just the idea but no actual tech. One could argue that designing an actual mechanism for alerts is a major improvement and win. This is how numerous folks have defended themselves against previously granted idea only patents.
Last edited:
+1. If not his Airness, Michael Jordan, could sue Apple for using "Air" in some many of there product names.
Good! Maybe Paul can now spend more time getting some serious dental help and stop this "crazy-man sue everyone under the sun" hobbies.
Maybe the people on the Microsoft forums can poke fun at Steve's liver. At least Paul Allen still has his teeth.
Straw man arguments... pathetic.
Actually, no you don't. The federal courts use "notice pleading," so you only have to put the other side on notice. Details of how your patent was infringed come later - in some jurisdiction via so-called "infringement contentions," and in most other jurisdictions in response to so-called "contention interrogatories" or even, in some cases, on the eve of trial when expert reports are exchanged.
In the complaint, itself, you at most have to specify which products are accused, and which patent claims are infringed by each product. In most cases you actually only have to list a single product and explain which patent (but not necessarily which patent claims) are infringed by that product.
In this case they didn't even do this minimal amount of detail.
But don't be tricked into thinking you have to explain exactly how your patents are infringed - you clearly do not have to do that in the complaint.
Well, this is not entirely true. While the case is not identical, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal the US Supreme Court changed pleading rules, in that the the complaint needs to state a sufficient factual matter for a claim that is plausible on it's face (if i understand the decision correctly).
It simply can't say "he did X", it needs to be much more specific, "he did X when Y with Z and I intend to show this." Once you get to discovery, then game-on!
Better still invalidate the patents for being overly board and obvious after all if that many people can be infringing in an non specific way how can these patents be valid.
Well, this is not entirely true. While the case is not identical, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal the US Supreme Court changed pleading rules, in that the the complaint needs to state a sufficient factual matter for a claim that is plausible on it's face (if i understand the decision correctly).
It simply can't say "he did X", it needs to be much more specific, "he did X when Y with Z and I intend to show this." Once you get to discovery, then game-on!
See my earlier post re Iqbal. No court has stated that a patent complaint needs more than a product and an asserted patent claim post-Iqbal. Prior to Iqbal, simply accusing a product was sufficient. In many courts it still is. No court requires infringement contentions
I see your point. The interesting thing re. Iqbal is that the decision is so new, the legal system is still trying to figure out precisely what the reprecussions are. I'm sure that plaintiff's lawyers lobbied congress enough, because at some point the Senate Judiciary Committee was preparing to introduce legislation to revert back to the FRCP for pleadings. Not sure whatever happened to that.
But, I see your point.
I think the best solution would be an "Open Source" project to invalidate every Microsoft patent due to prior art. Remove every bit of IP from their company.
No court? This one did. This court dismissed the suit because saying, "They infringed patent X with one of their multitude of products/projects/web sites," isn't sufficient to put the recipient on notice as to the nature of the infringement. (That's the "on notice" requirement.)
Read the actual court filing, and you can see what the judge said on the matter. (The filing is available through Groklaw.net.)
I know trying to use logic with you is going to be impossible based on your comments, but how is this case with Paul Allen related to Microsoft?
Also, would you suggest the same for Apple, or are you just another blind hypocritical fanboy who thinks your emotions should be the rule of the land?
Why would it be a good idea to invalidate every Microsoft patent / remove every bit of IP from their company?
Amazes me that these rich white men really don't care about their personal appearance.Good! Maybe Paul can now spend more time getting some serious dental help and stop this "crazy-man sue everyone under the sun" hobbies.
Not sure how the man's teeth relate to this. But yes, glad the Court are trying to stop this seemingly without merit case(I'll admit, I haven't reviewed the entire thing extensively)
Time to take a trip in the 757 Paul. Maybe a quite island in the South Pacific for a few months.
Good! Maybe Paul can now spend more time getting some serious dental help and stop this "crazy-man sue everyone under the sun" hobbies.
OMG!!!! Gross out! Like total!!!!
No, the court did not say they need to say anything more than what products infringe which patent claims. I've read the order (it's not a "filing."). As you say, it is not enough to say "one of Apple's products infringes one of the following patents." You have to say "apple's macbook pro model #xxxxxx infringes US Patent No. x,xxx,xxx." Some courts (and some commentators) believe you need to go a bit further, and say "apple's macbook pro model #xxxxxx infringes at least claim 1 of US Patent No. x,xxx,xxx ."
NO court has ever said you need to say "apple's macbook pro model #xxxxxx infringes at least claim 1 of US Patent No. x,xxx,xxx because the accused product contains chip x which comprises the following elements, each of which corresponds to the following elements of claim 1: ......" In fact, court's have only ever said you DON'T need to do that. The FRCP contains a form patent complaint, which (at last check, only one) court has said isn't good enough other than with respect to assertions of contributory and/or induced infringement allegations, and that one court merely required listing a claim number, which the form does not require.
Maybe the people on the Microsoft forums can poke fun at Steve's liver. At least Paul Allen still has his teeth.
Straw man arguments... pathetic.
I'm sorry. I guess I should have put in the required "/s" sarcasm quote in for those in the humor-deficient crowd. It was just a joke. I'm sure Mr. Allen's teeth are just fine and that photo I posted was a photo of Paul just after gnawing on some fine African gold for lunch. See that? I made a funny. No need to get your dentures in a bunch. Damn, I can't stop myself.
But if you want to compare things like a funny photo of Paul Allen's teeth to a man losing his liver to cancer, go ahead.
These "few guys in a garage" typically get acquired by the big corporations who are able to defend themselves against lawsuits with their own patent portfolios. Those who are in the biggest danger are independent software developers who want to remain independent, but make it big enough to challenge the larger corporations. Microsoft even found a round-about way by dropping money into SCO to try to sue Linux distributors -- why? because the Linux guys from the garage became a threat.
I think you would see a whole lot more innovation by independent software developers if there was not fear of stumbling onto a patent. I also think you would see the big corporations pushing the envelope even further if they didn't have to waste their time worrying about litigation from patent trolls.
I did not say innovation has stopped, I just said that patents are not fostering innovation as much as they are stifling it.
There are mechanisms in the court to handle this. However, case history gives benefit of a doubt that first issuance could be defined better.
If you haven't noticed, the amount of frivolous lawsuits have actually come down in the past ten years. This is a direct result of heavy fines and even convictions for "shotgunning" lawsuits and overburdening civil courts not to mention defendants wasted time in court.
My opinion on this is Paul Allen's firm is not getting the revenue they expected from licensing and are trying to find any good reason to sue any profitable electronics or information technology company to get back in the black.
IMO, basing your income stream mostly on litigation is a proven failure time and time again. Eventually your reputation gets around. You are then just shunned from the next big thing since you don't play well with others.
For that December 28th deadline the court gave them. That is a big sign that the judge doesn't think highly of this suit. He could have easily had the date go into next year with a deadline of January 10th or the 15th. Instead, some group of freshly minted attorneys and paralegals are not going to have a Christmas holiday as they work writing this up.
Perhaps, the senior partners will enjoy their Christmas morning, century old brandy (1910 was a very good year for Brady) and review it on a day before the deadline to submit it to court. Maybe a paralegal or a legal secretary will have a baby nine months after this. A lot of interesting things go down at law firms in the middle of the night getting ready for a deadline.
You know I don't think I have ever see a current picture of the guy. Is he even alive or is he like the dictator leader in the Woody Allen film Sleeper. With just a nose left.
I don't know much if anything about this current series of patent infringements being given thrown at Apple. But, it seems like Paul is just in it for himself and his cash. I mean the guy was a big promoter of defeating Bill Gates Senior's income tax initiative that would have taxed earners of $200,000/year. That tax money would have gone to help schools and other social services in need of some serious funding.
I don't know much if anything about this current series of patent infringements being given thrown at Apple. But, it seems like Paul is just in it for himself and his cash. I mean the guy was a big promoter of defeating Bill Gates Senior's income tax initiative that would have taxed earners of $200,000/year. That tax money would have gone to help schools and other social services in need of some serious funding.