I found out about this here: http://www.labn...and-loopt/4828/ and they include a link to the argument itself: http://dl.getdr.../techcrunch.pdf

You got favorable responses from Danny Amonte, Steven Glass, Hitler and David Duke.

What are you complaining about?

Earthcomber sent us a press release touting their patent infringement lawsuit. They wanted attention, so they got it. We contacted Loopt for comment. That was the first they heard of the suit.

There is a conflict of interest here, true. We disclosed it. Mark explained why he thinks the patent is bogus. Readers can make their own judgments.

We’ll see if the suit goes anywhere. Maybe Earthcomber should hire Mike Redding as an expert witness. He seems like a big fan.

For example, this patent filed back in 2000:

http://www.free...om/7284033.html

It discusses the idea of locating people via GPS at length, for a Japan based mobile social network that was launched in 2001. I know for a fact they had implemented GPS by 2004. Perhaps even as early as 2003, when the patent in question was filed.

So there really doesn’t seem to be anything new or novel about this. Mark made a good call.

Really? What about Dodgeball and probably dozens of other small startups?

How many people are going to be comfortable starting a business around some obvious idea (hey! phones have gps and internet now! let’s show people interesting stuff near them!) if there’s all kinds of people unsuccessful enterprises (like Earthcomber) with land-grab patents waiting in secret to steal the fruits of success?

For a lot of web entrepreneurs it’s not IBM or Google they’re worrying about — the markets worth entering are too small for giants like that anyways — it’s people gaming the legal system and laying snares with patents that shouldn’t have been issued in the first place.

Early dodgeball didn’t use GPS: you texted your street address and got recommendations that way.

If the distinction between “send a text message containing an address to a service and get notification of people and things of interest near your location” and “read your location from a gps unit and send a message containing your latitude and longitude to a service and get notification of people and things of interest near your location” is going to rule out dodgeball as prior art, I think a lot less of Earthcomber than I did before typing this out.

I mean, really: dodgeball is out and about in 2002 and lets you text your address to a location and get notifications of things-of-interest near there. In what way is it NOT obvious to clone that idea but use gps instead of hand-entered addresses?

Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person or entity, which causes that person or entity to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff.

In the context of defamation law, a statement is “published” when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.

1. A scantily known startup called Earthcomber out of Chicago. Incorrect. Earthcomber is a download feature on Nokia phones and winner of 2008 Nokia application contest.

2. has filed a rather absurd patent infringement suit against Loopt, a location-based social network with a substantially higher profile in the Valley and elsewhere.

3. You can also use it to share your current location with friends, although not using any GPS or triangulation. Incorrect. IT has a GPS component. I have a Nokia N 95 with GPS and Earthcomber is a downloaded feature on it. It flys with the GPS component.

We’re not talking about an individual filing suit against Starbuck’s because they spilled their hot coffee when driving on the highway while text messaging. One party filed a patent application with an effective filing date of June 2002 (can could potentially swear back up to another year) that issued into a patent. There are three independent claims, and several dependent claims. Not sure which claims have been asserted but each are presumed valid unless can be shown to be invalid. Loopt could very well have a strong argument of unenforceability and/or noninfringement. Who knows? Claim 1 is set forth below. If you can provide a basis why the claim is invalid, please do. It would support your argument and help your sponsor Loopt.

Regards, john
1. A method of notifying a user using a device about people, places and things having attributes that match explicit preferences of the user and are within a desired proximity to a location associated with the user, the method comprising the steps of: creating a user preference profile, wherein the user preference profile is created by the user; storing the user preference profile; creating a profile of at least one of the people, places and things; storing the at least one of the people, places and things profile; determining the location of the user; comparing the user preference profile and the at least one of the people, places and things profile to determine if the at least one of the people, places and things has attributes that match the preferences of the user, wherein the step of comparing the user preference profile with the at least one of the people, places and things profile comprises the step of determining whether the at least one of the people, places and things is within a distance that is specified by the user in the user preference profile; and notifying the user of all of the at least one of the people, places and things that match the user’s explicit preferences and are within the desired proximity to the user’s location.

While the patent office has driven me crazy on occasion, they don’t just rubber stamp these things. The patent office probably forced them to narrow down their claims significantly from their originals, and the claims probably cover more narrow ground than you think when you read the entire patent. The claims really are the most important part. I’m not a patent lawyer, so I’ll call this a simplistic, hypothetical example. Let’s say I built something that has every element of Claim 1 but instead of having the user create his own profile, the system automagically does it. I’m not infringing anymore because I don’t have all of the elements specified in the claim. In fact, I may be able to get a patent with my automagical profile creation.

Really, it is all pretty complicated stuff with lots of pieces to consider. So, labeling it absurd or frivolous isn’t really fair. ..and it is an issued patent, which means that the set of elements in the claims have been determined by the patent office to be “special” at the time of the filing. It doesn’t matter if it looks obvious to you today.

It’s just a year’s difference, but in this case, that may be pretty important.