Patent Trolls and IP warehouses limiting application of technology in weather

[Rob H]

I was looking at something completely unrelated to the topic today and noticed this little blurb at the bottom of Spotter Network's web page:

Portions Licensed under United States Patent Number 7,089,116

I thought that seemed strange, so I pulled up that patent here: http://www.google.com/patents/US7089116

Filed by User-Centric, aka Location Centric. They don't seem to do anything as an entity other than license out their intellectual properties, of which they have many. Here's the part that seems relevant:

As indicated above, meteorological condition information or hazard information may be observed by a spotter near a location of the observed condition. FIG. 9 illustrates a spotter 901 observing meteorological condition 903, namely, a rotating wall cloud, indicative of a future tornado. Spotter 901 may enter data 907 into a mobile computing device 905, e.g., a personal digital assistant, smartphone, mobile telephone, or the like. Data 907 may include a type 909 of the observed condition, and an approximate location 911 of the observed condition. The approximate location may be based on the location of the mobile device 905, e.g., when device 905 includes a global positioning system (GPS). The spotter 901 may enter information indicating that the observed condition is at the location of the mobile device 905, or may provide information indicating the observed condition's location relative to the mobile device 905, e.g., by providing a distance 913 from the mobile device 905, and a direction 915 from the mobile device to the observed condition. The device may then convert the location information into estimate latitude and longitude coordinates. After the spotter has entered the relevant data 907, the spotter can send the data to the weather center using a submit button 917 or the like.

I'm appalled at this patent and surprised that SN was prompted into licensing this IP. What about mPING - would they need to license this as well? Reading through some of the related patents is frustrating and makes me question why I would ever want to work on any piece of software again.

 

[Mark H]

well...after reading thru all that mumbo jumbo...the only thing I can conclude, is it looks like a BS patent, to me...it looks like they're trying to
patent something that they have no direct control over, but act like they do...screw SN.

 

[Michael Gavan]

I was looking at something completely unrelated to the topic today and noticed this little blurb at the bottom of Spotter Network's web page:

Portions Licensed under United States Patent Number 7,089,116

I thought that seemed strange, so I pulled up that patent here: http://www.google.com/patents/US7089116

Filed by User-Centric, aka Location Centric. They don't seem to do anything as an entity other than license out their intellectual properties, of which they have many. Here's the part that seems relevant:



I'm appalled at this patent and surprised that SN was prompted into licensing this IP. What about mPING - would they need to license this as well? Reading through some of the related patents is frustrating and makes me question why I would ever want to work on any piece of software again.

As a minarchist/anarchist leaning libertarian type....Welcome to the world of government sponsored corporate extortion. The very concept of patenting an idea is intended to allow a new company or inventor to monopolize a product for a given amount of time and use government resources to keep outside competition out. Where it is most destructive is the fields of medicine and software. Perhaps the oldest most famous example is the fact that Alexander Graham Bell <strikeout>invented</strikeout> patented the telephone. Now we have entire corporate entities that do nothing but patent software that is already in use and that someone else wrote....Or perhaps came up with 1000's of vague concepts years before they were viable solutions. This not only renders competition impossible, but also destroys volunteer efforts.

Greed can be managed if it has no power of compulsion (threat of death or loss of freedom) to back it up. When Greed meets power, it becomes a two headed monster no one dares encounter. "Why would I ever work [on software]" Is the end game that eventually forks off into to revolution or genocide, historically. Hope I haven't depressed anyone too much. Oh and, of course, it's all the libertarian types fault when it fails.

 

[Rob H]

well...after reading thru all that mumbo jumbo...the only thing I can conclude, is it looks like a BS patent, to me...it looks like they're trying to
patent something that they have no direct control over, but act like they do...screw SN.

Er, I think you read that wrong. I'm guessing the patent assignee (Location Centric) sent a cease and desist to Spotter Network and gently persuaded SN to pay for licensing. So SN is the victim in this case.

 

[rdale]

patent something that they have no direct control over, but act like they do...screw SN.

You read that completely wrong

 

[Dan Robinson]

Something seems off about that - the patent (as I'm reading it there) simply refers to a vague idea, not an actual working product that exists and accomplishes said objectives. That would be like me filing a copyright registration for a photo idea I had that would prevent all other photographers from attempting to get the shot before I could. Or I could patent the idea of a flying chair without having to actually build one, then claim ownership once someone did the work to make it happen.

 

[Rob H]

double edit: For the record, I'm not saying or implying that Baron is a patent troll or IP warehouse. While I was digging through all the patents I noticed some from Baron and wanted to add onto the conversation with examples of patents that seem like they could be easily infringed.

Also kind of bummed out a little that Baron Services, Inc. has certain patents and claims:
1. Displaying weather data on a 3d map
2. Use SCIT to calculate when a specific storm will impact a location
3. Use SCIT and common data like CAPE/CINH/etc. to create a tornado probability index and display on a map

This is what I worry about with privatizing weather and weakening NOAA's role as the gatekeeper to these things. Severely limiting how data can be used, in some cases to help save lives (Spotter Network). I really hope that SN was given a free license and that they didn't have to pay or negotiate with the IP holder.

edit:

Something seems off about that - the patent (as I'm reading it there) simply refers to a vague idea, not an actual working product that exists and accomplishes said objectives. That would be like me filing a copyright registration for a photo idea I had that would prevent all other photographers from attempting to get the shot before I could. Or I could patent the idea of a flying chair without having to actually build one, then claim ownership once someone did the work to make it happen.

Unfortunately, that's not how patents work. You patent an idea - it doesn't actually have to be a product. I can't see an actual product that the IP holder from the original example makes. They seem to exist simply to license their IP. If you have a product that you use, manufacture, or sell and it has a "read on" the claims of the patent (Google shows claims in the right column) you can be found to be infringing their patent. The burden of proof is on the defender since it's assumed the patent is valid. There's an equivalency measure too where a judge can ignore the literal claims and say that your product is "close enough".

It would give me a little faith in the system if the licensing was just a formality that SN initiated and not an ugly necessity prompted by a C&D.

 

[Dave Kaplow]

The real problem and indeed the basic concept behind patent trolling is that it doesn’t really matter whether the patent in question is valid or not. Unfortunately, over the last decade or so the US patent office has been awarding patents, especially software patents, for all kinds of vague ideas and elementary algorithms obvious to any first year computer science student. The result has been a flood of intellectual property lawsuits and the emergence of patent trolling as a corporate business model. Patent trolls carefully calculate the amount they charge for a settlement and license, always asking for just under the minimum amount it would cost in legal fees to defend against the lawsuit in court. In this way even blatantly invalid patents can still generate money for the troll, because when the cost of invalidating the patent is beyond the means of the troll’s victim, which is usually an individual or small business with no knowledge of patent law, most will choose the cheaper option and just pay up. And yes, this is basically a legal form of extortion: pay up or we‘ll ruin you! Patent trolling is really killing innovation in this country, and I’m saddened but unsurprised to see it cropping up in a meteorological context. The system is broken.

 

[Stan Rose]

The real problem and indeed the basic concept behind patent trolling is that it doesn’t really matter whether the patent in question is valid or not. Unfortunately, over the last decade or so the US patent office has been awarding patents, especially software patents, for all kinds of vague ideas and elementary algorithms obvious to any first year computer science student. The result has been a flood of intellectual property lawsuits and the emergence of patent trolling as a corporate business model. Patent trolls carefully calculate the amount they charge for a settlement and license, always asking for just under the minimum amount it would cost in legal fees to defend against the lawsuit in court. In this way even blatantly invalid patents can still generate money for the troll, because when the cost of invalidating the patent is beyond the means of the troll’s victim, which is usually an individual or small business with no knowledge of patent law, most will choose the cheaper option and just pay up. And yes, this is basically a legal form of extortion: pay up or we‘ll ruin you! Patent trolling is really killing innovation in this country, and I’m saddened but unsurprised to see it cropping up in a meteorological context. The system is broken.

That about sums it up.

 

[Dan Robinson]

About 10 years ago, SBC claimed they held a patent on web site navigation - yes, any set of links or tabs used to navigate in between web pages. They actually started attempting to enforce this by sending letters to companies. Had they been successful, every web site on the internet would have been in violation.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/01/23/sbc_enforcing_allencompassing_web_patent/

 

[MClarkson]

I agree with most of the above posters. Many (most?) software patents are being issued for overly broad and clearly obvious solutions.

 

[Tyler Allison]

It's awesome when a company is granted a patent on a 6th grade word problem.

If a train leaves Chicago going 100mph and it's 500 miles to St. Louis...when will it arrive in St. Louis? Nope..can't patent that or you'd have to ban every math book between 6th grade and Calculus. Duh!

But if you replace train with storm. _That_ you can patent.

I can't publicly comment on SN's patent concerns. Other than to say it wasn't voluntary.

-Tyler

 

[MClarkson]

Well there is some good news, hopefully.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ls-flags-in-the-senate-but-states-push-ahead/

If our politicians actually use their head a bit (OK that might be wishful thinking) there should be more and more action against patent trolls in the near future.

 

[TrumanBoyer]

FYI: Patentability

Well there is some good news, hopefully.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ls-flags-in-the-senate-but-states-push-ahead/

If our politicians actually use their head a bit (OK that might be wishful thinking) there should be more and more action against patent trolls in the near future.

I'm not wanting to argue any of this, just throwing it out there since it might explain some of this, or maybe answer some questions.

Elected officials have a really difficult time defining exactly what is patentable, and what is not.
Just like law enforcement has a difficult time deciding what is the "spirit of the law" vs. the "letter of the law".
With Criminal Law enforcement, we have Judges (or juries).
With Patent Law we have examiners, and the courts if it can't be settled otherwise.

It think that the idea mentioned here meets the current requirements of patentability.

Remember that software is generally not patentable (legally it is considered a work of literature so we use copyrights),
but a system or process is definitely patentable.

Patentability is not about how Clever the idea is, except than that it cannot be an "obvious" idea.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentability

The patent laws usually require that, for an invention to be patentable, it must be:

- Patentable subject matter, i.e., a kind of subject-matter eligible for patent protection

- Novel (i.e. at least some aspect of it must be new)

- Non-obvious (in United States patent law) or involve an inventive step (in European patent law)

- Useful (in U.S. patent law) or be susceptible of industrial application (in European patent law[1])

Notice that I quoted my source, so as not to be infringing on copyrights...

Patents are not free (trademarks and copyrights can be free) and don't really give much protection.

If you hate the troll, (as I do), you might find some comfort in knowing that
a "patent troll" spends a rather large amount of time and money to patent an idea,
and may have to spend an even larger amount of time and money defending it in court.

The Wright Brothers were considered "trolls" by many of their competitors.
Wilbur spent most of his later years in court cases, and they never really got "filthy rich".

Another problem is the definition of a "Patent Troll". In the invention of the Laser, one might
(and one did) make the argument that BELL LABS is a patent troll, of course the term was not used in the 1970's.

If you are interested in this kind of thing, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Gould

Again I am not wanting to argue, just inform. There are simply too many hairs to split IMO.

I do believe we need Patent Reform, but the task is an awfully lot more complicated than it might appear on the surface.

Good discussion Guys. Thanks for listening.

 

[John Wetter]

Er, I think you read that wrong. I'm guessing the patent assignee (Location Centric) sent a cease and desist to Spotter Network and gently persuaded SN to pay for licensing. So SN is the victim in this case.

Ding, ding! What do we have for the winner?!?! No matter the level of bogus-ness you believe a patent is, it takes a boatload of money to fight it or prove it invalid. That being absent there are few choices available.