Google is being sued by Northeastern University and a start-up run by an associate professor over allegations Google breached a patent relating to the way Google pulls data from its databases.
The suit, lodged in the patent friendly US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleges that Google misappropriated a 1997 patent that relates to a method of breaking database queries into multiple portions and having each part processed by a different computer. This method allows for faster results on Google, according to Boston.com.
Whilst the validity of the claim will ultimately be decided in court, the story behind the claim is classic patent trolling. Jarg Corp, the startup who along with Northeastern is suing in this case, was approached by a Boston Law Firm 2 1/2 years ago (who they refuse to name) suggesting that Google may have breached their patents. Rather than spend money and take action then (which the law firm who approached them wanted), Jarg Corp waited until they could find a lawyer who would take the case on a contingency basis, ie: they only get paid if the case is successful. They are so confident in their case they aren’t willing to spend money on it…which sort of draws its own conclusions.
Google’s only response so far is to note that they are aware of the case, and that they believe it to be “without merit.”
In other news: St. Philips Community College sues 3M for “multiple finger data entry”, keyboard, patent infringement.
I know! Who knows what else google is infringing on!!They want it all and they would do what ever it takes to domonitate and control.
They must be kidding
Blazing fast video search:
http://www.meet...earchVideo.aspx
Yeah, the fact that they didn’t want to try to outspend Google Legal proves that they really don’t have a case. Another brilliant conclusion, Duncan. Way to uphold your reputation for credibility.
Matt
if they were serious about the patent breach they wouldn’t have spent 2 1/2 years sitting on it, and a University that size wouldn’t be short of money either to afford a case, particularly if they thought they’d win. It says patent trolling.
But hey, lets talk about the credibility of going into business against the people who have backed you from day one Matt…the very same people you tried to drive out of business. Don’t play ethics and credibility with me boy, it’s a zero win game for you
U know how many patents google had filed in ‘97? Zero.
Duncan, there are many reasons to pursue patent infringement on a contingency basis. Part of it is to motivate your legal team, another part is cashflow management as Matt pointed out. Their approach has nothing to do with patent trolling.
As a Northeastern University alumnus, they damned well better not throw money at such a frivolous endeavor.
I agree with #4 and #7 — there are very few startups that could go after “the 5th largest listed company in the United States” (to quote you) on anything other than a contingency basis. I think it is unfair to call them patent trolls because they don’t have the money to do otherwise. And, I have to imagine that it would be difficult to find a lawyer that would go after Google on a contingency basis.
Duncan,
I am not sure what your definition of “patent trolling” is but by the tone I guess it is a really bad thing. All I can say is this: Just because an organization doesnt want to spend 5-10 million dollars in a law suit doesnt mean they dont have a good case. This is true in the business world and it is *really* true in the academic world. Suggesting that a educational institution would find it easy to put that kind of money at risk reflects a misunderstanding of how these organizations work. First, budgets are very political. Second, even if you do have a good case, you can loose. Just ask Marcia Clark regarding OJ. Therefore suing is a risk. A law firm that specializes in this area may be in a better position to take on the risk profile. But note that even for the law firm there is taking a considerable risk regardless of the quality of the case.
Regarding the 2 1/2 years, the fact that one waits does not in any way reflect the merit of the argument. Again, marshaling a commitment of this size is non-trivial for *any* organization. But even if you have the cash, in these types of cases it is often advisable to wait for substantial infringement to occur. I do not know what the specific circumstances are, but patent infringement clients are generally advised to wait. Allowing you adversary to totally commit to the technology before suing may be what you call patent trolling (again I am not sure of the definition here) but it could also be called doing exactly what counsel suggests. It is what *every* intellectual property holder is advised to do if they are not in a competitive business and are not intending to shut the infringer down.
There is a large group of people that believe that all patent pursuits are inherently improper. There are arguments about “cant you win in the marketplace” and such. But, as an patent holder myself, I greatly appreciate the power that it gives me as an individual to protect or monetize my ideas. I promise that no matter how smart I am I cannot beat IBM or Apple or Google, or Intel. I cannot win in the marketplace by myself, or even with kleiner perkins money. So I appreciate a patent as a tool that gives a little guy like me a place to stand in the market.
Someone patented parallelizing SQL queries? Whoa, you mean if I split up my database in two and then join the results I owe these jokers a royality payment?
ok, so explain how it takes 2 1/2 years to find a no win, no fee lawyer in a country that pretty much invented the concept. I’d think that the reason it took so long is because a whole pile of lawyers in the mean time would have said no way…which would indicate that the chances of winning are less than certain. If they are so convinced that they would win, they would have pursued it then and there, surely.
money aside, it still looks like patent trolling.
1. ~6-12 months to get buy-in from the university bureaucracy to move ahead.
2. ~6-12 months to find a lawyer and strike a deal, and get it approved by the university bureaucracy
3. ~3-6 months to put together the claim charts, and get it approved by the university legal team
sounds about right. patent cases are glacial by nature.
“I’d think that the reason it took so long is because a whole pile of lawyers in the mean time would have said no way…which would indicate that the chances of winning are less than certain.”
Again, there is no certainty that they were looking for a lawyer. Waiting is generally part of the strategy. Another possibility is that they just didn’t focus on it for a while. After all, even if they win the spoils are *many* years away. Patent cases are very expensive and very slow.
The point is that you do not have enough facts to make the kind of definitive statement you made. The best way to really make a judgement would be to read the complaint and the patent.
Having said all that, it’s clear they’re after money (and not an injunction to protect their startup). Still, that doesn’t make them a “troll”.
#3:
http://www.meet...com/Whatis.aspx
Wow. That has to be one of the worst explanations for a website yet…
Plus, I personally wouldn’t advertise your website until I proofread the page and corrected the typos first, didn’t your “Frontpage 101″ class teach you that?
Sorry for the design crack, I couldn’t help it…But it is terrible.
Is that not pretty much server and database clustering? Which is quite common for high load applications.
Congrats to Northwestern for getting their name in the paper. When your 15 minutes is up, we’ll Deadpool you.
And yes I realize that Northwestern is a University, not a company, so sending them to the Deadpool would be that much more hilarious.
Kelli,
This is Northestern, not Northwestern.
Jesse you are right!
what constitutes a patent “troll”? I have no idea whether this suit has merit, but the knee-jerk characterization of this case as a “troll” seems unwarranted. Universities do lots of basic research and patent much of what they do and if they sue for infringement it seems like a reach to call them trolls. These cases are interesting from the standpoint of institutions that operate tax free being able to spin a company out to do their patent enforcement, then reap the benefits tax free.
“They are so confident in their case they aren’t willing to spend money on it…which sort of draws its own conclusions”
are you so ignorant or you are insulting your reader’s intelligence? The amount of money involved in a patent case for taking on a giant like google can be potentially enormous, even technically it is a slum dunk case.
Duncan,
The points made against your article and assertions are right on target. Everyone who sues for their rights in a litigation-happy society isn’t a co-conspirator/troll/whatever-you-want-to-call-them.
If they do own the IP, it is their right to wait until the statute of limitations expires to wait for the right moment. Maybe they just decided to wait. Maybe they were doing due diligence – I can imagine that Google doesn’t give out facts on their network architecture too easily. Maybe they were reflecting on whether it was worth their time. Maybe it was taking time to work through the red-tape at the University.
As for your contingency fee argument – that’s just makes no sense. If I can create a no-lose situation where I can possibly defend my IP without any risk (of course this neglects the time risk which is considerable), then why wouldn’t I opt for that path? if I offered yo play yo in a round of Blackjack where you could
a. win but then have to give me 30%
b. lose but i would cover your losses
what would you chose?
I actually know the two clowns in question – Belanger and Baclawski. Their companies have never gone anywhere Jarg, Semantx lifesciences and now they have a healthcare +social networking related startup, none of which have any traction, so this is their 15 mins of fame. Patent trolling at its finest.
Is this some sort of claim related to MapReduce and Google’s WorkQueue?
I thought you could only patent something that is not obvious. One of the basic things they teach you in a Databases’ class is parallel database system. So I am not sure how they could even patent this? This seems even more ridiculous than the Microsoft claim of Linux violating 250+ patents.
The contents of this “article” are worse then the typical tabloid trash in the supermarket article. Some of the comments here are just as ignorant. I have no expectations of ever seeing any intelligent analysis or commentary on techcrunch. Everything published these days has a weak pathetic slant of some type in a lame attempt at garnering hype in the echo chamber.
MeetingFlex sucked
Sounds to me like they are being sued over database sharding, which is a technique everyone is using, especially Web 2.0 startups using cheap commodity hardware. Yet another reason why software patents suck. Now if only I owned the patent on the XOR cursor!
I own the patent on using the keyword “select” in sql.
I’ve actually met Belanager and a friend of mine used to work at the company, and as a previous comment suggested…these guys are clowns. Jarg went no where (the company was/is a disaster) and they are now taking to being patent trolls in order to make a buck. I’m actually on Google’s side for this one.
I don’t think that the legal proceeding will stand solid against google as data sharing is one of the part of every search engine that are user based and for users.
…often called “patent trolling” by critics — amass intellectual property portfolios and file suits against other businesses, accusing them of infringement.
Taken from this article http://www.msnb...60819/from/RSS/
When is someone going to sit up and realize there is something wrong with the US patent system?
just wanted to point out if there was no chance of winning this why would the law firm in question be willing to take it and waste their money? I think if anyone used googles patented stuff they would go after them.
I never heard of the guy but harnessing the power of Goggle for 30 seconds suggests to me that there is nothing clownish about Professor Baclawski (Ph.D. Harvard) who is obviously a perfectly respectable academic in a perfectly respectable CS department in one of “the other” universities in Boston. (http://www.ccs.....edu/home/kenb/) There is also nothing fishy or suspect about the patents he holds, some of which have only recently been granted.
Here’s the abstract for the patent in question — note the filing date …
United States Patent 5,694,593
Baclawski December 2, 1997
Distributed computer database system and method
Abstract
A distributed computer database system including a front end computer and a plurality of computer nodes interconnected by a network into a search engine. A query from a user is transmitted to the front end computer which forwards the query to one of the computer nodes, termed the home node, of the search engine. The home node fragments the query and hashes the fragments of query to create an index by which the hashed query fragments are transmitted to one or more nodes on the network. Each node on the network which receives a hashed fragment uses the fragment of the query to perform a search on its respective database. The results of the searches of the local databases are then gathered by the home node.
Inventors: Baclawski; Kenneth P. (Waltham, MA)
Assignee: Northeastern University (Boston, MA)
Appl. No.: 08/318,252
Filed: October 5, 1994
Notice is hereby served: Zarcon Industries, Inc has trademarked the words “legal”, “search”, “data” and “software”. And we have a patent on the use of said words on the same web page. You all owe us a lot of money.
Oh, and Jon, sorry about the world ending and all that, but don’t you have anything better to do than rant in the wee hours of the morning? Good thing you’re so much more erudite than the rest of us.
I side with Duncan on this one. Hope Google win. If you have a legitimately violated patent, you should cause a fuss right away, not sit on it for ages. The fact that Google used the technology doesn’t mean they didn’t invent it themselves. We all know the internal combustion engine was invented pretty much simultaneously, but it was only Daimler who commercialised it. Similarly, it was only Google who took the databasing idea thingy and ran with it. The case has no merit and should be thrown out.
Nick
Disclosure: Google feeds me and my family.
Hank Williams:
I’ll give you some charity.
In software, here’s how the “little guy with a patent” story usually plays out:
(a) some “little guy” might obtain a patent or patents on some software-based system
(b) the “little guy” then makes a product that incorporates the patented systems
(c) if the market niche is small enough perhaps nothing more happens, other than that the “little guy” perhaps has more protection from market forces than is socially optimal (in a small niche copyright on the software + incumbent advantage should be sufficient; adding patent protection on top of it is perhaps excessive)
(d) if the market niche is large or the system contains components that would be valuable otherwise, the “little guy” winds up having to give licenses away to those “big guys” you mentioned — IBM, Microsoft, etc…Why? Because there’s about 20 years’ worth of fairly obvious patents in the “big guys”’s inventory, and it can be very difficult to make _any_ software-based system that infringes none of those patents (do your text fields infringe any patents for “simulating a carriage return in an electronic text editing environment”?…there are some still-valid patents actually that obvious out there)
Thus: if there’s any real value or general applicability in your patented system you’ll be at the mercy of teh big guys if you actually produce a product incorporating it, because so many dubious software-related patents have been granted over the past couple of decades.
What is a “little guy” to do? It seems the answer these days is: don’t make a product, just sue companies that use “your idea”; I put “your idea” in quotes because the “big guys” don’t have a monopoly on dubious patents, and — unsurprisingly if you think about it a bit — it’s the case, more often than not, that when a “big guy” is found to be infringing some “little guy”’s patent that that patent is pretty dubious to begin with.
Thus in the software field:
— most software-related patents are dubious (probably at least 25:1 in my experience reading them…)
— legit patents on truly novel ideas offer minimal protection from big guys, due to the large # of obvious patents that’ve been handed out
— most patent litigation is performed either by “little guys” without products but with some dubious patents and a legal team working on contingency, or by a company of mostly-lawyers who don’t have any products but who have managed to acquire some dubious patents; in both cases the target is almost always some “big guy” who is almost certainly infringing the patents but who also probably couldn’t help but infringe them (because the contents are so obvious)
…which winds up looking less and less like the healthy functioning of a system designed to promote innovation, and more and more like a transfer of wealth away from those actually producing value (in this case, “big guys” with actual products) and towards non-value-producing sectors of the economy (litigation and other paper-shuffling fields).
It’s not clear what sort of fix would actually work: tightening standards for new software-related patents would eventually solve most of the current problems, but it’d take another 20 years or so for all the dubious patents to expire first, and you’d have to actually trust that the same agency that handed out so many dubious patents in the first place would be able to stick to it’s new mandate for letting only high-quality applications through.
If I were a patent holder in fields not related to software I’d be nervous right now; the brazenness of software patent litigation combined with the typical low quality of the patents is a kind of rot that, if not contained, might spread to other sorts of patents with time, eventually dragging down their perceived legitimacy — and thus, eventually, their legislative sympathy…
The original law firm that found this was patent trolling. Not the actual plaintiffs. I think the strategy to find somebody to do it on a contingency basis is based on cash management and not whether they believe if the have a case or not. But … why doesn’t somebody call them an ask?
“The fact that Google used the technology doesn’t mean they didn’t invent it themselves. ”
Actually, the whole point of patenting is that you don’t get to use something without the consent of the patent holder even if you (re)-invented it yourself.
Even if it is software. Even if you are Google. And Google, of course, understands that very well — when someone violates their patent they are not friendly. (This helps feed you, Nick, and your family).
And, of course, you don’t have to “run with thingys” to have rights where those “thingys ” are concerned. M any patents, in fact, are filed precisely to block someone else running with somethingy and making a commercial success of it and negatively impacting the patent holder’s current business. that could bebuilt around an inferior technology. Deep-sixing innovation is S.O.P.
And you don’t lose your protection by not reacting immediately. You get leeway in deciding when to prosecute your claims.
Kind of the way it is.
Duncan — please. stop. writing. now.
Duncan, please don’t comment on legal issues ever again. TechCrunch readers know quite a bit about the patent system. Oversights like the one pointed out by commenters here damage the credibility of the whole site. Why don’t you ask Arrington to connect you with a patent lit attorney to explain the basics?
#16:
Have to agree with you!
#3:
Before you go posting all over Techcrunch forums advertising your website, you should considering getting something that works first, rather than the slow, badly-designed excuse of a website you have right now (which looks like it only took a couple of minutes to create in Frontpage).
Last I heard you can expect to spend $250,000 minimum on a patent lawsuit.
Good article follows on the silliness of the term “patent troll.” How does investing in patents differ from investing in stocks or real estate hoping to make money in the future off the work of others while sitting on your butt, except that it is far more risky as only a small percentage of patents make money?
http://www.host...eny%2005-06.pdf
I wonder what % of patent lit ends up in a win or settlement for the holder? will the new legislation allowing for patents to be ruled obvious during infringement litigation change this % significantly?
Belanger & Baclawski are shakedown artists of the 1st order.
Here is to hoping Google takes them to the cleaners – shameless patent trolls!
Hi aaron and AnonForThis,
If you know Ken and I then you should give both of us a call and apologize.
Michael Belanger
It sounds like the patent is for an obvious idea. I vote patent troll. There should be a poll after every patent lawsuit article to let readers vote on whether the litigant is a patent troll or not.