COMEDY OF THE ABSURD
"Google faces patent infringement over Google Talk", goes the lead headline in memeorandum, via Search Engine Watch. By now, we're all so used to seeing these stories, our tendency is to quickly skim past it. As the article explains:
"Google is being sued for patent infringement over the VoIP portion of the Google Talk program. I've posted the full text (38 pages; PDF) of the complaint filed by Rates Technology in October here. A copy of the court docket (as of today) is posted here."
What does Rates Technology want? Why, the usual of course:
"Rates Technology is asking for a jury trial along with:
+ Enforcement of the patents
+ Damages including the loss of profits so provide a royalty
+ A preliminary injunction against Google
+ Attorney's fees...So who is Rates Technology? That's a good question. Finding substantive material on the open web is a challenge. However, a web search did turn up this excellent this blog post from TMCnet publisher Rich Tehrani, that Rates Technology, a company Tehrani says, exists, "to collect revenue from other companies" has also sued Nortel, Sharp Electronics and others over patents it holds. The post also includes has a blurb from a December 7, 1998 WSJ story about the company and recent comments (April 2005) from Rates Technology CEO, Jerry Weinberger.
The blog post also mentions that Weinberger and Rates Technology have patent agreements in place with 700-800 companies and have litigated 25 times in 15 years.
According to the court docket both parties will meet with Judge E. Thomas Boyle in early February."
It's phenomenal that this is viewed "business as usual". Om Malik also has a post on the situation.
As a recent BusinessWeek article summarized the bigger picture recently,
"For over 200 years, the U.S. patent system has catalyzed economic growth and protected the national interest. Unfortunately, over the past few decades, patents have become irrelevant -- even harmful -- to the innovation process."
As the author Greg Blonder puts it:
"Common business practices, obvious to anyone in the field, are enshrined in overly broad and problematical patents that reduce competition. Patent "trolls" are buying up dubious IP, then suing companies actually engaged in productive activities, such as building products and serving customers.
Wasteful court cases, like the recent BlackBerry imbroglio, occur because patents are granted for narrow, redundant concepts that courts find difficult to unravel, and so are open to interpretation.
We need to invent ourselves out of this mess."
It's a mammoth challenge as the article goes onto explain, but one place to start would be to stop referring to these companies with quaint Harry Potterish terms like "Patent Trolls". Instead terms like "Patent Muggers" might be more to the point.
Comments