As I understand it, no new precedent has been set, but odds are good that Interval (Paul Allen's company) will meet the 28th Dec amended filing deadline. That makes this particular result mostly uninteresting. (odds are good because the patents involved are ridiculously broad. Finding potential breaches is like shooting fish in a barrel, given that google, apple, AOL, and all other defendants all have loads and loads of products to choose from, and Interval has many patents of very basic features everyone uses all the time. They did the usual patent troll move and filed without being very explicit about what parts of the defendants' products are in breach, so presumably they've got a list all hashed out and were just waiting for this verdict to come down).
To elaborate a bit: No new precedent has been set, because the defendants' arguments to get this case thrown out were all based on well-defined precedent (Twombly and Iqbal). There were no novel interpretations that have now been strengthened by a judge accepting their merits. Imagine some alternative scenarios: (A) Google and the other defendants used a novel (i.e. creative) argument that no one's used before to get this case thrown out. That would have been great: This new way of getting rid of patent trolls would now be known to the world, and it would be strengthened by the precedent of this very case. (B) The case was not thrown out at all, but instead accepted based on the current extremely vague filing by Interval. Google and the other defendants would now have to scramble a sizable legal effort together and will most likely either start lobbying for reform right now, or will do so later once the final legal bill of this little troll fishing expedition of Interval rolls in, especially if you add in the potential risk of losing*. They'll likely start a lobbying campaign for at least the minor reform of requiring patent suits to list in fairly exact terms which parts of the defendants' products are in breach. That's something. (C) The case is not thrown out, and in fact rides all the way to a verdict where google and the other defendants have to pay tens of billions of dollars in damages. The idiocy of the US patent system would immediately and savagely become obvious, and the defendants will likely form a very strongly held opinion that the patent system needs widespread reform. Assuming they can still afford it, no doubt they'd start a gigantic lobbying campaign to try and hold off the massive amounts of patent trolls that'll descend like flies to a carcass, emboldened by the precedent. Most likely public attention and the sheer size of the case will ensure a series of appeals moves the case all the way to the Supreme Court. *) These cases are basically never 'lost', perse, but if they look like they may not be going your way, one company or another usually ends up settling for a fairly large number. I'm going to call that 'losing', for obvious reasons. The mere fact that you can get that far also sets a precedent all by itself. Not a legally binding one, of course, but nevertheless, patent trolls will be emboldened if it happens, hence, it's a loss. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
