Company didn't read it, but accepted it anyway. IIRC there was a guy in Russia that wrote in his own terms for a contract with a CC company.
What's wrong with defending your idea and making some $$$? Especially when the courts rule it legal? It's like the guys that actually read the fine print and exploit it. This strikes me as patently un-freemarket. So who was using this process in 2002-2003? The method uses the descriptions in a classification step that assigns a newly given computer file to one of the categories. The method creates a description to summarize the contents of each of the categories in the directory. The method partitions the unorganized files into hierarchically arranged categories that form an initial directory or allows a user to provide the initial directory. The method allows a user to provide a large number of unorganized files or an initial directory. Method and apparatus to automatically organize computer files or web pages into meaning categories, to acquire new computer files or web pages, and to maintain the resulting organization in hierarchical directory tree structure. The patent was filed in 2004 with an '03 priority date. He filed for his patent more than a decade before partnering with a patent troll. quote:įact remains that he patented a working concept in use by multitudes and partnered with a shyster enforcement firm to attempt to get a check quickly. Or you were falsely describing the concept. I was obviously explaining the concept in the most layman terms possible. Choi didn't return a call and e-mail requesting comment on his patent. The inventor of the '532 patent is Louisiana Tech computer science professor Chee Hung Ben Choi, (whose name appears as Chee Hung Ben on patent documents). Louisiana Tech University is proud of being a public institution "committed to quality in teaching, research, creative activity, public service, and workforce/economic development." So how does that mission statement square with getting a patent on something as basic as putting computer files in folders and then partnering with a clear patent assertion company to sue several companies? "I will reach out to some of our IP and commercialization folks and see if I can get you an appropriate contact," Louisiana Tech Communications Director Dave Guerin told Ars via e-mail on Friday. The lawsuits accuse the companies of having products that automatically sort files into folders based on the names of the files and the folders. Four other companies-Asustek, Box, Citrix, and SugarSync-have ongoing litigation. Defendants in those lawsuits include seven defendants that already appear to have settled the claims, since the federal court records show their cases are closed: Syncplicity, iDrive, Dropbox, SpiderOak, Workshare Technology, Egnite, and Carbonite.
#IDRIVE VS CARBONITE VS SUGARSYNC SERIES#
That alone would be enough to make it the Electronic Frontier Foundation's pick for "Stupid Patent of the Month." In September, Louisiana Tech went on to strike a deal with an entity called Micoba LLC to enforce the patent, which resulted in a series of 11 lawsuits filed later in the year, all in the Eastern District of Texas. The '532 patent, "Method and apparatus for automatic organization for computer files," describes little more than a system of sorting files into folders. 8,473,532 will serve as a reminder that many universities aren't doing what they can to make the patent system work better. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is hoping that the saga of US Patent No.
0 kommentar(er)
