Can you spell “patent troll”?
Software developer SpeedTrack has filed suit against nearly two dozen major online retailers, including Amazon.com, Best Buy, Overstock.com, Nike, Costco and Dell, accusing the major online retailers of infringing some patent that supposedly covers a search mechanism customers can use to locate products on their websites.
The complaint, filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accuses the defendants of infringing U.S. Patent Number 5,544,360, titled “Method for accessing computer files and data, using linked categories assigned to each data file record on entry of the data file record”.
Dubbed GIA (Guided Information Access), originally developed and patented by SpeedTrack co-founder and CTO Jerzy Lewak, the system is designed to guide users to contextually relevant information when searching specific keywords, ensuring a result rather than a page that says “no result can be found” or whatever. According to its website, law enforcement agencies like police departments use SpeedTrack’s GIA software to sort through massive criminal records data, which supposedly helps them solve crimes faster.
Evidently, this type of software is important for Internet retailers’ conversion rates, because such technology enables users to discover related or similar products on their websites when specific items cannot be found. But I can hardly imagine that SpeedTrack’s technology is so unique that the e-commerce giants should have to pay as much as a penny to the software company. Of course, a jury may very well be persuaded otherwise.
Message to Lewak and the rest of the SpeedTrack team: how about you focus on sales to mark up your balance sheets rather than turning to courts in the hopes that Amazon and Co. will come fill your pockets for you.
This is absolutely absurd. How do you get a patent for assigning a category to an item?
Patent troll like these guys are destroying innovation and make me sick that they might actually scare companies into giving a settlement or win if they get the right judge.
So is innovation not performing a patent search when companies create a new product?
What is innovation? Apple stealing from Xerox or Microsoft stealing from Apple. No I get it, inspired by, excuse me.
What is destroying innovation? Some high level executive who scout the convention floor at Demo for new ideas to feed to their development teams from some poor guy with a family and a good idea.
Screw that, if these companies are soooo innovative there would be no patent issues. Period.
They filed in Northern California? Odd.
Everyone knows that patent trolls file in the court in Eastern Texas.
Not necessarily. The courts in Eastern Texas are no longer THE place for patent trolls to file. From what I hear, there is no longer order there and things have become a free-for-all. Perhaps these people actually have a GOOD and ENFORCEABLE patent and are in fact not patent trolls (this statement is AFTER reading the patent in question and looking at the filing date and the claims).
SpeedTrack just signed their own death warrant. Those billion dollar companies they are suing are going to bury them in the courts.
Again, not necessarily. They are goliath, SpeedTrack is small. They’ll probably get some really good settlements from these suits. I don’t think their lawyers will be sleeping for the next few months.
When will this stupidity stop? America has to do something about this software patenting thingy. This is beyond ridiculous.
Agreed. I hate software patents.
I hate you too Sean.
ahahahahhaha XD
You made my day, Software Patents! Thanks!
LOL… thx for lightening up an otherwise serious subject & audience with a little humor (exclusive of Sean, Andraz, EH, KP, Loopy, JoeKahuna, Brett & Yu who had nothing meaningful to contribute, just drivel). that was funny!
Also there’s WhoGlue (who what?) suing Facebook over patents. Interesting that nothing discussed about others (i.e. LinkedIn, etc). WhoGlue says they’re a legit company using it, but they tried to sell their patent.
http://www.balt...0,5315456.story
Ed, whether or not WhoGlue is a legit company using the subject matter of their patents is irrelevant on the issue of whether Facebook is infringing them.
I read the main patent from the WhoGlue law suit. I’m not as confident that WhoGlue will succeed as I am with SpeedTrack because WhoGlue’s claims seem a bit confused. I was impressed however with the clarity and the simplicity of the claims in SpeedTrack’s asserted patent.
do you have nothing better to do ?
Robert, you might want to read the prosecution history of the SpeedTrack patent and the case history of their other attempt to enforce this patent–which resulted in a successful request for reexamination of the patent and a stay of that lawsuit pending reexamination. I suspect that additional information would lead you to reconsider your impression about the validity, clarity and simplicity of the asserted claims.
It must be trademark infringement season. I got a trademark infringement notice from Facebook for this http://sheedy.p...-say-the-f-word the other day. Granted the domain name in question is completely useless in comparison. Nice to see Facebook getting some of their own though.
I’m starting to blame the Government for granting these patents in the first place. They should treat these claims like they do with drugs.
i.e. if you are first, you get a patient for 1-2 years but then others (generic versions for drugs) are free to enter the market.
By then a hundred other developers have invented a better mouse trap than you. So your patient can go to trash can.
I disagree. There needs to be an insentive for creating inventions.
However, there shouldn’t be software patents, because the whole idea of software is using someone else’s stuff and building upon it (i.e. not reinventing the wheel).
This was a legit invention back then, but it should not have been accepted in 2007, when it was in common use.
Actually, it was as valid then as it is now. The companies now sued should have seen this patent coming and should have offered to take a license. If the inventor was stubborn and unreasonable, they should have filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit and either forced a license (so to speak) or they should have tried to have the patent declared invalid. They did neither.
Actually, while all patents benefit from a presumption of validity, it is not necessarily the case that a patent that was once considered valid is still so. Patent law changes over time, as in the recent KSR v. Teleflex case concerning the issue of obviousness as applied to patent claims.
But, more importantly, the ambiguity of claim language can result in a situation where an infringement argument depends on an intepretation of the claim language that is incompatible with the interpretation that was used to obtain the patents approval over prior art.
That puts a company sued for infringement in an interesting dilemma: does it argue non-infringement (based on one interpretation of the claims) or invalidity (based on the other interpretation)? What happens in practice is that a judge rules on claim interpretation in a Markman hearing (also known as a claim construction hearing), and then that determines the alleged infringer’s course of action.
But the point of this discussion is that a company can’t predict whether it will be sued, and can’t even necessarily argue for invalidation until it sees how the claims will be interpreted.
Robert, I understand that you may be predisposed to be sympathetic to patent holders. But I urge you to familiarize with the full case history around this patent–both its prosecution history (which you can find through PAIR) and the lawsuit which resulted in its reexamination.
This is the most pussy move I have ever heard. I went ahead and sent them a hate email at information@speedtrack.com . It feels good if any one wants a virtual punching bag. So slimy and Un-american. Any of you other smaller companies waiting to do this, you are in for some karma. Your some friend is going to smash a finger in your front door and good bye 1 million.
not cool
…if the quality of Speedtrack’s website is any indication of their merits, I suspect Amazon and the rest have little to fear…
I heard that the parent company of “Roundup” weed killer owns the patent to most if not all of the seed variaties in the U.S. Seed Bank. This means that if you don’t use their “Roundup proof seeds” vs the original seed (like the ones in the seed bank”, they can technically sue you for growing crops that they hold a patent on. Scary.
[Citation needed]
i am surprised on the readers comments. From the sounds of this post they are NOT a Patent Troll (look it up http://en.wikip...ki/Patent_troll ). SpeedTrack seems to have a real business, develop technology and apparently had an idea that was novel and was granted a real patent. For all we know these big companies knew about the patent and have thumbed their noses at it (maybe because they are big) and are willfully infringing. Maybe these SpeedTrack guys are the in-the-right underdogs here. Could it be that, like many people reading TechCrunch, they came up with a creative solution and are being abused by these big boys? One thing they are definitely not is some blood sucking former IP law firm guys that scoop up patents to shake down companies like a “patent troll”.
I think the bigger issue is patent reform. Business method patents are already all but killed now IMO software patents should also be nuked as they generally are invalid patents and ultimately stifle innovation and provide little real protection to the average patent holder. The USPTO examiners really do not have the expertise to determine the non-obviousness of these patents so its resulting in a lot of litigation on invalid patents. This may be one of those invalid patents but lets not shoot SpeedTrack for asserting the rights they have been given under our crappy patent system.
Alex, I totally agree. Good job for sticking up for what you (and I) believe to be correct.
Regardless of how you feel about software patents in general, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the specific details of this particular patent.
Specifically, look up Application No. 90/010,325 at http://portal.u...nal/portal/pair and read the documents in the Image File Wrapper.
the system is designed to guide users to contextually relevant information when searching specific keywords, ensuring a result rather than a page that says “no result can be found” or whatever. According to its website, law enforcement agencies like police departments use SpeedTrack’s GIA software to sort through massive criminal records data, which supposedly helps them solve crimes faster.
So this guy is selling software to police departments that allows them to find suspects for any criteria (”ensuring results”), even if those criteria would not normally lead to a particular person. This is profiling by information-association, a harassment generator.
PayPal Adaptive Payments API users take notice.
And maybe SpeedTrack are using this IP. Why are you so quick to label them a patent troll?
You Silicon Valley guys are still pirates aren’t you.
Remember, people do not like what they can not steal.
The issue is not whether or not they are a patent troll. The issue is the patent itself. Look up Application No. 90/010,325 at http://portal.u...nal/portal/pair and read the documents in the Image File Wrapper.
Heh, I should use you to find infringing parties on a few of the cases I’m working on.
Good point re: the PayPal API.
Why did they not file a patent on breathing – ass holes. Good point KP +1
Good for them. They were approved for the patent and should be allowed to protect it. The patent office is at fault for allowing the patent to be approved.
Suing amazon is justified!
Oh hell, when will this crap stop!!!!!!
When companies actually start innovating new ideas.
How does one “innovate a new idea” exactly?
By moving out of Silicon Valley?
This gotta stop
This patent they supposedly have is for such an obvious thing that it’s laughable.
Joseph, look at the filing date and ask yourself whether this was done before then. If so, you’re right, the patent is invalid. If not, and I suspect not, patent is good and enforceable.
SpeedTrack’s kids are going to be going to some nice Ivy League colleges.
I’m going to say based on EF Codd’s 1969 whitepaper regarding the relational model and his follwoing decade of followup work, speed track’s patent is obvious. But then again so is every other software patent I have read…
This is crap. Sometimes I think the whole patent business exists just so there can be more jobs in the law field.
Why don’t the US government, or US tech industry do something about this problem. Both should recognize that it is only causing harm and hampers growth (although growth is good — but it could be even better).
Another horrid example is the Amazon patent on 1-click-buy. Interestingly the patent isn’t recognized in europe, as with most software patents.
http://en.wikip...oftware_patents
There are thousands of small technology-based companies like that, who make their living by licensing their technology to giants like Amazon etc. According to the U.S. Patent law they must protect their stuff. Otherwise, they will lose it.
Like in the i4i case.
Do you really think MS & alike invented everything they try to sell you? Is Apple really soooo inventive as they are trying to make you think of?
Come on, one million for licensing the technology can’t hurt Amazon, Dell or Best Buy.
Radi, where did you come up with the figure of $1 million?
I just spent three years investing lots of my time and cash to develop an invention that legally qualifies for a patent. It’s my invention — novel, unobvious, etc. — and sure, I want to own it. I just put a big chunk of my life into it. To me ownership of an invention is not greed, but a way to make a living and build a business. I’m taking a big risk, created something new, and would enjoy getting paid for it (but only if it’s valuable to others). Three or four years from now when my patent finally issues, I should be so lucky that TC is writing such an article about me. Why shouldn’t I (or you) be allowed to protect an idea and own it for a limited period of time? I believe that every big company mentioned in this article has threatened litigation or used it effectively against smaller inventors and companies. If someone is innovative, and willing to risk their time and personal savings, why shouldn’t they have the same rights? If these guys indeed were issued a valid patent for an invention that was probably quite novel at the time they filed their patent application several years ago (the problem they solved is actually non-trivial), then why shouldn’t they be able to get a small cut of all the money Amazon is making off their specific concept? If it’s useless code, then Amazon can stop using it. Clearly this isn’t the case, however. Also, Amazon can “work around” the patent, in which case the patent holder has no claim. But until these companies invest their own time and money and come up with their own solutions (which they will probably patent themselves), they’ve used one that somebody else put a lot into. Anybody remember 1-click purchasing?
So are you gonna wait 13 years too before suing dozens of companies with big pockets all at once, all of a sudden?
I guess the author couldn’t do any research for this article. In the United States a Patent is:
What Is a Patent?
A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the Patent and Trademark Office. The term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. US patent grants are effective only within the US, US territories, and US possessions.
The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention.
So, as you see they have the RIGHT to do what they feel is necessary to protect what they own. It probably took 13 years to develop a case against the plantiffs. They put the work into code and they should be awarded and protected to doing so.
Why are you not commenting on these large companies did not try to license the code from the company but instead went around and stole the code. These companies have dept. to check for patent issues.
Robin, perhaps you can share with us your views on what being an entrepreneur means… Maybe it’s a person who organizes, operates, and assumes the risk for a business venture.
Are large companies exempt from buying licensing, or is idea theft ok?
I for one, prefer to let the parties, go through due process. What say you?
Oh, right, nevermind, I see that several of the big companies are advertising on your site… my bad!
Okay, “all at once, all of a sudden” — you might have a point there. Maybe there is some laches or estoppel defenses that are usable. On the other hand, according to your estimation, they still have another 7 years to continue suing people before the patent expires.
This is getting ridiculous, is this the new way of making money !!
As apposed to the old way of stealing the idea of some poor guy and having him assassinated by a hit man?
sure, that is the only alternative, right?
How was this vague and poorly written patent was granted is beyond me. The real problem is that these processes are not proprietary they are obvious and essential. Processes should never be granted a patent.
I think the problem lies in granting a patent for such things. That is what hinders innovation, not the actual lawsuit. Many innovators are discouraged when they try to act on an idea and discover patents that may hunt them down the line.
I’m not saying I agree with this company’s efforts here, but it is valid for them to fight for a patent they hold. There are plenty of companies in the broader tech world (not just software) that do this (IBM, Qualcomm, InterDigital, Rambus, etc.).
On January 12, 2009, the United States Patent And Trademark Office ordered the reexamination of all U.S. Patent 5,544,360 claims asserted by SpeedTrack in a similar lawsuit. In ordering the reexamination, the Examiner identified four substantial new questions of patentability. The result was that a judge ordered a stay of that lawsuit pending the patent’s reexamination.
have you even read the patent docs? the very definition of vague. and 13 years to build a case? puh-lease.
Again they were awarded the patent. We should be blaming the patent office for granting it. But it was granted and they have the right to protect themselves. If the above post is correct and they are reexamining the patent, great. But again they own the process so they have the ability to protect it for up to 20 years or until they remove the patent.
If you go on their website you can see other companies have licensed the process.
You can find a record of the reexamination request at http://www.uspt.../week50/TOC.htm. On February 5, 2009, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Phyllis Hamilton granted the stay based on the reexamination I cited above. The reference number for the order of a stay is No. C 06-7336 PJH.
Unfortunately I do not know how to find all of this information online, but you surely have enough details to track it all down if you are skeptical.
Actually, much of the information I couldn’t find is available via http://portal.u...nal/portal/pair — look up Application No. 90/010,325 and read the documents in the Image File Wrapper.
THE PATENT SYSTEM, said Abraham Lincoln, “ADDS THE FUEL OF INTEREST TO THE FIRE OF GENIUS.”
Yeah, he had a patent in 1849. It was patent number 6,469.
Patents are part of the engine that powers our nation’s economy. Our American patent system encourages inventors to proceed with experimentation and to make their inventions. If the invention is patentable under conditions of the LAW, then the inventor enjoys, for a SPECIFIC LENGTH OF TIME, the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to exploit the invention and to REALIZE ANY PROFITS.
Think about it – basic inventions, PROTECTED BY PATENTS, have created new industries and given rise to new companies. In fact, the history of the U.S. patent system is filled with the names of inventors who contributed to our country’s economic progress. Many inventors have changed the course of human history.
Our patent system provides protection, while fostering creative thinking, scientific problem-solving and developing those techniques that pave the way for our future. WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO BENEFIT from the creative thinking of your mind, your money and time, which we all have in limited amount, why would anyone create new inventions? This speaks to the heart of entrepreneurship. It’s what makes our lives better!
When you are issued a patent, if someone else has/had a patent for the same invention before you – your patent rights could be contested or you could contest a patent issued that infringes on your invention. That is called patent infringement, and inventors sometimes have to go to court to settle disputes and damages.
Amazon is a common target for lawsuits.
Having looked at the patent claims, and the data (1996), as a software developer I don’t think this should have been awarded a patent.
The patent itself talks about a flat file implementation (directories and files), and any modern application of the size of those sued by this company would use a RDBMS or ORDBMS. In fact the problem is solved far more easily (and elegantly) with the patented technologies of the DB’s than it would be by a flat file system with a code overlay. Metadata (which is all a category is) has been used to search data since the Gopher days.
Some more interesting patents with similar subject matter:
http://www.pate...0/fulltext.html
http://www.pate...9/fulltext.html
I’m sure there are more.
great discussion! From a European perspective, it´s hardly understandable that someone can actually protect common processes as described in this particular discussion.
But more important is still how to protect innovation without losing innovators to burocracy.
In Europe, filing a patent is so complex and time consuming that virtually no software developer will file unless he gives up his ability to continue being innovative ;-(
and this means full risk without a glamse of protection – that´s one of the reasons why quite a lot of start p in Europe tend to stay under the radar of publicty and trying to set up their Business on pure networking.
brudTO I want to say – thank you for this!