rallybug

Well, we may like to read the details, but as I'm unable, on a quick Google search, to find details, I can't. I have found a few websites commenting on the apparent shotgun approach, aiming at over 100 companies

Bob

Like I said, for a smaller company, it isn't worth the effort. They go after ADT and the other big guns because it shows they aren't abandoning trademark and patents and there's money in it. Going after a small web company with not much money gets nothing.

Once they've won and got a large settlement, it'll pay for itself going after everyone else, but there's no money in it till they've one a large settlement.

Bob

Aye, trademark trolling is getting harder and harder to win these days, except in Texas. To win, you've got to show application of the technology, not just an airy fairy idea.

Most companies often settle and then license because it's quicker and cheaper than fighting, but that only works if you're targeting one at a time. Going shotgun on a bunch at once, there's nothing to be gained by settling, they might as well fight it.

DeltaSierra70

Apart from closing them down and stopping even small sales. Been there done that $50K lighter.

DeltaSierra70

This isn't about trademarks, it's about using someone else's foresight by realising that the Internet could be used to transmit digitised video from remote cameras back to a server and onto your computer or monitor.
I don't agree, regarding 'going shotgun' it's the best thing they could do.
Like I said, I have a horse in this race, so can't explain why I am on the other side of the fence to ADT.

Steerpike

You must really love her ...

Bob

They'll lose with the shot gun approach.

The whole patent trolling works by holding someone up that is making money and getting them to settle and license your patent and not going to court. Going shotgun means they won't settle as there isn't any advantage for them to do that because all the other companies will have the same strategy and resources to pool, and take this to court.

There's no money in a flakey, wafty patent that covers a very wide variety of use without very specific use and technology behind it. An idea alone isn't enough.

Steerpike

But if I walk into a store today and buy a camera (like the one I have and referred to above), there is nothing anyone can practically do to stop me using it - so for 'people like us' (end users) it's not an issue.

My camera acts as a webserver; I open a port on my firewall to pass the information; I connect to it from any browser anywhere - nothing anyone can do to stop that short of packet-filtering the entire internet ...

info about the lawsuit:
http://www.securityinfowatch.com/Dea...t-infringement

info about the patent:
http://tools.patentcalls.com/patent/07817182
more info...
http://tools.patentcalls.com/search/index

Having read some of the verbiage on the above sites, it seems to me the claim is against companies operating as service companies and charging a fee for delivering information (images, alerts, etc) to end users. This does not seem to apply to anyone simply installing their own device and monitoring their own device. Further - the wording sounds incredibly vague - I don't think you can patent a 'concept' and this seems to be just that - an idea for 'how a system could work' - more like a business plan than a technically innovative design.

Regardless - anyone who wants to buy a camera for remote monitoring should ignore all this and get on with it!

DeltaSierra70

I agree with you last comment, as long as you monitor it yourself.
You can patent a 'concept' as long as you can describe how that concept would work. You don't have to show a working model, just drawings if applicable.
Every day, the USPO delivers a sack load of patent applications to the US Patent Office. Some filed by specialist firms, who employ recently retired "Patent Examiners" to craft applications for clients. These people are pretty good at covering their inventors idea. Some even know what the inventor is trying to cover, and add claims accordingly. Some people, like me, don't, as what they want covered is out of the main stream, and just talking to one of these patent attorneys costs by the minute. And sadly, often either don't listen, or understand. The patents in question were cleverly thought out, and breaking 'Claim One' will be very difficult.
But getting back to the sack of mail; The number of 'readers' at the Patent Office is not that high, and about 15 minutes is the average 'first read' time of any application. This glut of applications produced the requirement to have an "Abstract" of what it covers in general terms, so that the 'first read' can direct the application into the correct specialised 'second read' section.
Bottom line to all of this is, not many patent applications succeeds without it being tossed out at least once. If it floats through, then you didn't ask for enough.
I file provisional patent applications on a monthly basis. Some here and some in the UK. Here, and the Philippines, are different to the rest of the world regarding patents, as they are "First to Invent" whereas the rest of the world are "First to File" Plus, if you discuss your invention with anybody other than your patent attorney, before filing, they can claim as co-inventors. Here? You can talk to anyone about it, as long as you file within one year of 'inventing' the, whatever it is.
"Improvement" patents are fun. Because you start by saying things along the lines of; "What we learn from..." But always first read their Claim One.
Years ago, I read a patent, and thought "Why did he do it that way?"
So I re-patented it and only changed one word in Claim One. 'Before' became 'After' so be careful of what you feel all variations of the language could do. I sold 'my' patent to the original holder for £25.00 and my filing costs.

md95065

Thank you for providing such compelling examples of some of the many ways in which the US patent system is hopelessly broken ...

Cuthbert Rizla

So, just to sum up.
It is fairly cheap and easy to put up a camera outside a building using a broadband connection inside the house which can be remotely accessed anywhere in the world.
Notwithstanding all that legal guff.

DeltaSierra70

Yes.

Bob

You don't want to know how bad the Trade Mark office is then but for shits and giggles, Tim Langel, google his "Edge" shenanigans...all went to pot when game devs had enough and took him apart and then EA finished him off...but he's back at it a year later

Ka Ora!

langdell is a twonk on the edge, Stripping him of his Trademark was a good thing.

Ozzidoc

Thanks.