  |
 |
  |
 |
| Home |
|
The
Technology Thugs This
is their business model. On one hand, they stereotype everyone who
sues them for patent infringement as “a patent troll”, and seek
the Congress and the courts to “protect” their interests; but on
the other hand, they illegally misappropriate other’s inventions, especially
when the patent owner is a small business or individual inventor who
does not have the wherewithal to go after them. They have no sense of
guilty. Unfortunately,
up till now their business model pans out very well and allow
people involved to get a lot of easy money, despite very dirty. The
following is a sad story, and at the end you will be surprised to know how capable those technology thugs
are, in invalidating any patent they misappropriate, with the help
of the courts sided with them. The
Infringed Patent 6,665,797 (“ ‘797 patent”) The invention of ‘797 patent is directed to using “a positive determination of existence of a payment program, or a valid account”; as a precondition for permitting protected software to be used— without causing a payment to be made with the program/account. Accordingly, the independent claims of the '797 patent have "No Charge" limitations, all written to preclude payment for permitting software use, but not all identical in the language used. And, the following story is how Google et al. colluded with the courts to invalidate the '797 patent in a Summary Judgment, by lying that the original filed application fails to disclose and support the "No Charge" limitations, while the fact is, there are "No Charge" limitations in the originally filed claims 1, 12.Google
Told Tons of Lies to the Court As
any patent owner would do, Tse (Our Ex-director) sued Google et al. in a Texas
district court in 2012, after sending
them numerous notices of infringement of his ‘797 patent but without receiving a response. Surprisingly,
in its Answer to Tse’s Complaint filed with the court, Google
denied everything it’d done, from as simple as “the use of a
password to sign into a Google account” (see COMPLAINT ¶ 26
& RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT ¶ 26), to “the use of the
password for purchasing an App” (see COMPLAINT ¶ 27 &
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT ¶ 27), then to “the use of the same
password to authorize an android device to re-download an App and
play the App” (see COMPLAINT ¶ 28, 29 & RESPONSE TO
COMPLAINT ¶ 28, 29), as follows :
COMPLAINT
¶ 25: Google,
through its virtual Stores “Android Market”, “Google Play”
and website http://play.google.com (formerly “http://market.android.com”),
has required/requires users to open accounts
with Google and submit information of their financial account, such
as credit account, to Google, in order that the users can purchase
at Google’s virtual stores “Android Market” and
“Google Play”. RESPONSE
TO COMPLAINT ¶ 25: Google
denies each and every allegation
in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶ 26: Each
Google account can be signed in to with a
respective username and password. RESPONSE
TO COMPLAINT ¶ 26: Google
denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 26 of the
Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶ 27: Upon
receiving a correct username and password of a Google account,
Google is authorized by the account holder, to make use of the
financial account information the account holder previously
submitted to Google, to receive payment from his/her financial
account, so that the account holder can
purchase application programs from the virtual Stores
“Android Market” or “Google Play”, by using the username and
password as a means for authorizing payment. RESPONSE
TO COMPLAINT ¶ 27: Google
denies each and every allegation in
Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶ 28: Once
an account holder has purchased an application program, Google allows the account holder to re-download for an unlimited number of
times, the same application program from the virtual Store
“Android Market” or “Google Play”, to any Android Device,
without repaying for/re-purchasing the application program. RESPONSE
TO COMPLAINT ¶ 28: Google
denies each and every allegation
in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶ 29: Google
requires an account holder to sign in to the virtual Stores
“Android Market” or “Google Play”, with the username and
password of the account used for the purchase
of a purchased application program, in
order that the account holder may re-download the application
program, with no charge on the account, to an Android Device
which is not already signed in. RESPONSE
TO COMPLAINT ¶ 29: Paragraph
29 is vague and unintelligible as written, and on that basis, Google
denies the allegations
contained in
Paragraph 29 of the Complaint.
COMPLAINT
¶ 30: Google
uses/has used DRM
software and/or hardware for preventing a user from using a
purchased App on an Android Device other than the one used for
making the purchase, unless the Android Device is authorized to
execute the App, by a user using the
Android Device to access the virtual Store “Android Market” or
“Google Play”, then signing in with the username and password of
the account used for the purchase. Google doesn‟t charge the
account for the authorization.
RESPONSE
TO COMPLAINT ¶ 30: Google
denies each and every allegation
in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
Obviously,
Google knew too well from the very beginning that it was infringing
a valid patent, i.e., the ‘797 patent, and therefore, it told the
court tons of lies in its Answer! Otherwise it doesn’t have to do
all these at all. Shortly
thereafter, Google et al. filed a motion to transfer venue, and the
case was then transferred to Northern California, as they wish,
because the court bought their story that the case would need
discovery on Google’s people and technologies in California. But
don’t be naive, Google would never let any discovery take place. What they
really wanted was nothing but a court in Northern California, to do
a dirty job for them. And, this is the beginning of the story --
|
