Allen initially filed the suit in August through his now-defunct Interval Research Corp, claiming that Apple had infringed on four patents related to e-commerce and Internet search. 10 other companies are named in the suit, including Google, Facebook, Yahoo and AOL.
In October, Apple and the other defendants filed a request to dismiss the charges. The accused companies asserted that Allen's clams were too broad.
"Interval has sued eleven major corporations and made the same bald assertions that each defendant infringes 197 claims in four patents," Apple wrote in the motion. "As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Twombly, it is in this type of situation in which courts should use their 'power to insist upon some specificity in pleading before allowing a potentially massive factual controversy to proceed.'"
According to The Wall Street Journal, U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman dismissed Allen's original complaint Friday, siding with the defendants.
"The allegations in the complaint are spartan," wrote Judge Pechman, setting a Dec. 28 deadline for Allen's company to file a more specific complaint.
Allen's spokespeople called the dismissal a "procedural issue," and reassured that "the case is staying on track."
Alan Fisch, a lawyer not involved in the case, said Allen's attorneys shouldn't have any trouble rewriting the complaint to meet the higher standards for specificity. "I would see this as a temporary setback or speed bump on the road that will be this litigation," said Fisch.
For several years now, Apple has held the unfortunate title of world's most-sued tech company. As a result, the Cupertino, Calif., is recruiting lawyers with applicable intellectual property experience. According to Businessweek, Apple has also hired "some of the nation's top patent lawyers as outside counsel."
Apple is engaged in numerous legal battles against its competitors. Earlier this month, Apple added 12 more patents to its lawsuit against Motorola, bringing the total number of patents that Apple claims Motorola is infringing upon to 24. By comparison, Motorola alleges that Apple has violated 18 of its own patents.
Nokia and Apple are also facing each other in a lengthy legal confrontation. Last year, Nokia sued Apple over the iPhone's use of patented wireless standards. Apple promptly countersued, alleging that the Finnish company infringed on 13 of its patents.
Allen's suit specifically references the following four patents:
32 Comments
United States Patent No. 6,263,507 issued for an invention entitled "Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented By Audiovisual Data."
so you can not look at things that have video and audio... sounds like a few thousands companies/programs can be sued over this.. vague (idk what it really means really, this is an interpretation, this goes for all my replies)
United States Patent No. 6,034,652 issued for an invention entitled "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
someone close to a device is drawn to see the device by a program.... totally.... thats like any program that draws users attention right?
United States Patent No. 6,788,314 issued for an invention entitled "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
this is the same as the last WTF? same thing different patent number? was this patent made so that they could make double $ from suing?
United States Patent No. 6,757,682 issued for an invention entitled "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest."
u mean any program that has a pop-up, or a notification of any kind....i pronounce these ultra vague, and used commonly, as well as 2 of them being the exact same
Even with all that money and that really big boat, Allen must be bored.
Pretty sickening, really.
I have applied for patents before. You have to be ultra-specific in describing your invention. I have had to rewrite my application four times thus far, and am currently working on the fifth.
I can assure you that my patent's title and description are a lot more informative than: "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest."
I mean, what the fuck is that?
I throw a lemon at your house to let you know there is something cool on TV?
PATENT GRANTED.
This is high on my list with what's wrong with the world. Definitely behind starvation and oppression... but ahead of music piracy... for sure.
Just skimmed patent 6,263,507 (56-pages!!) and it's geared toward browsers vs a device. It goes as far as to use the term "news browser" which could be a suit against any company that produces a modern browser. I get where what the patent is talking about was novel for 1996, but not being a lawyer myself, I would think there would be something about the "natural evolution" especially when you look at technology. Then again look how long it takes for amendments to catch up, case in point the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Either way it will end with corporations throwing around more money than any of us will ever see in our lifetime.