decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Allen v. World and Dog - First Amended Complaint - Updated
Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 09:25 AM EST

Paul Allen's Interval Licensing has met the deadline to file an amended complaint [PDF] with specificity. If you can read it without passing out laughing and/or having your head explode with disgust, I'd like to know what happened to you as a child that blunted your normal emotions.

No wonder he didn't want to be specific. This document is Exhibit A for why software patents are an oozing pimple on the nose of the US legal system. Interval is suing because it can, and it would like to be paid by anyone using the Internet in a normal way, and it can because the US Patent Office thought it was good policy to rubber stamp stupid software patents right and left, with the idea that they could be vetted in litigation.

And vetted they will be. But at what cost to the US economy? I can't believe any of these patents will survive intact. Normally, I'd ask you to look for prior art, but I see other, easier ways to toss them in the dumpster, so even if I weren't busy doing Comes v. Microsoft exhibits, I still wouldn't ask you to bother. Post any that you happen to know about, but I'm not asking unless one of the defendants specifically asks for us to do it.

Update: The docket, with all the exhibits:

12/28/2010 - 153 - FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement against defendant(s) AOL Inc, Apple Inc, Facebook Inc, Google Inc, Netflix Inc, Office Depot Inc, OfficeMax Inc, Staples Inc, Yahoo! Inc, YouTube LLC, eBay Inc with JURY DEMAND, filed by Interval Licensing LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(MD) (Entered: 12/29/2010)

12/28/2010 - 154 - NOTICE of Service: Disclosure of asserted claims and infringement contentions filed by Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC. (MD) (Entered: 12/29/2010)

Here it is as text:

**********************

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

___________________________________

INTERVAL LICENSING LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

AOL, INC.; APPLE, INC.; eBAY, INC.;
FACEBOOK, INC.; GOOGLE INC.;
NETFLIX, INC.; OFFICE DEPOT, INC.;
OFFICEMAX INC.; STAPLES, INC.;
YAHOO! INC.; AND YOUTUBE, LLC,

Defendants.

____________________________

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

JURY DEMAND

_____________________

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC, files this first amended complaint for patent infringement against Defendants AOL, Inc., Apple, Inc., eBay, Inc., Facebook, Inc., Google Inc., Netflix, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., OfficeMax Inc., Staples, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., and YouTube, LLC. Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC alleges:

THE PARTIES

1. Interval Licensing LLC (Interval) is a limited liability company duly organized under the laws of the state of Washington, with its principal place of business at 505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98104.

2. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant AOL, Inc. (AOL) is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 770 Broadway, New York, NY 10003.

3. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant Apple, Inc. (Apple) is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of California, with its principal place of business at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014.

4. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant eBay, Inc. (eBay) is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 2145 Hamilton Avenue, San Jose, CA 95125.

5. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant Facebook, Inc. (Facebook) is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 1601 S. California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304.

6. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant Google Inc. (Google) is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway,

2

7. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant Netflix, Inc. (Netflix) is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 100 Winchester Circle, Los Gatos, CA 95032.

8. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant Office Depot, Inc. (Office Depot) is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 6600 North Military Trail, Boca Raton, FL 33496.

9. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant OfficeMax Inc. (OfficeMax) is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 263 Shuman Boulevard, Naperville, IL 60563.

10. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant Staples, Inc. (Staples) is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 500 Staples Drive, Framingham, MA 01702.

11. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant Yahoo! Inc. (Yahoo) is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089.

12. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant YouTube, LLC (YouTube) is a limited liability company duly organized and existing

3

under the laws of the state of California, with its principal place of business at 901 Cherry Avenue, San Bruno, CA 94066.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. Venue is proper in this Federal Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) and 1400(b) in that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district and the defendants have a regular and established practice of business in this district and have committed acts of infringement in this district.

INTERVAL RESEARCH CORPORATION WAS A PIONEER IN THE
TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY

14. Interval Research Corporation (Interval Research) was founded in 1992 by Paul Allen and David Liddle to perform advanced research and development in the areas of information systems, communications, and computer science. Mr. Allen, who served as Interval Researchs chairman, was one of the earliest pioneers of personal computer software. He co-founded Microsoft with Bill Gates in 1975 and later founded Vulcan Ventures in 1986. Mr. Liddle served as Interval Researchs president and chief executive officer. He was instrumental in developing fundamental technologies starting in the early 1970s when he worked at Xerox at the Palo Alto Research Center.

15. Starting with Mr. Allen, Mr. Liddle, and a handful of scientists and inventors, Interval Research evolved into one of the preeminent technology firms. It employed over 110 of the worlds leading scientists, physicists, engineers, artists, and journalists, and was at the forefront in designing next-generation science and technology.

4

16. In addition to the research that Interval Research conducted, it also provided funding and assistance for other projects. For example, Interval Research served as an outside collaborator to and provided research funding for Sergey Brin and Lawrence Pages research that resulted in Google. Indeed, a Google screenshot dated September 27, 1998 entitled About Google! identifies Interval Research in the Credits section as one of two Outside Collaborators and one of four sources of Research Funding for Google. See Sept. 27, 1998 Website About Google! attached as Exhibit 1.

17. Mr. Brin and Mr. Page also recognized Interval Researchs funding in the Acknowledgements section of their 1998 research article entitled Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine in which they present Google.

18. As a testament to Interval Researchs innovation, it was issued approximately 300 patents in less than a decade. Four of those patents are the patents-in-suit.

19. Interval Licensing LLC owns the patents-in-suit. The company is owned and controlled by Mr. Allen.

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,263,507

20. On July 17, 2001, United States Patent No. 6,263,507 (the 507 patent) was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented By Audiovisual Data. The 507 patent describes an invention that enables a user to efficiently review a large body of information by categorizing and correlating segments of information within the body of information and generating displays of segments that are related to the primary information being viewed by the user. Interval was assigned the 507 patent and

5

continues to hold all rights and interest in the 507 patent. A true and correct copy of the 507 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

21. Defendant AOL has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. AOL operates many websites that provide articles, videos, advertisements, and other types of content to users. In order to help users find additional content items that may be of interest, the software and hardware that operate the websites compare the available content items to determine whether they are related.

When a user views a particular content item, the AOL websites generate displays of related content items so as to inform the user that the related content items may be of interest. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 6, when a user views a particular news article on the AOL News website, the website displays both the article (identified by the red box) and links to other related news articles (identified by the green boxes). Similar functionality is used by many websites that are owned and operated by AOL, including AOL Answers, Asylum, Auto Blog, Aol Autos, Big Download, BlackVoices, The Boombox, The Boot, Cambio, Cinematical, Citys Best, Comics Alliance, DailyFinance, Engadget, Fanhouse, Flea Flicker, Gadling, GameDaily, Games.com, AOL Health, Holidash, Housing Watch, AOL Find a Job, Joystiq, JSYK, Aol Kids, Kitchen Daily, AOL Latino, Lemondrop, AOL Lifestream, AOL Mail, Marlo Thomas.com, Massively, MMA Fighting.com, Moviefone, AOL Music, My Daily, AOL News, NoiseCreep, Parent Dish, Patch, Paw Nation, Politics Daily, PopEater, AOL Radio, AOL Real Estate, Rented Spaces, AOL Seed, ShelterPop, AOL Shopping, Shortcut$, SHOUTcast, Slashfood, AOL Small Business, Spinner, Stylelist, Switched, AOL Television, Tourtracker, AOL Travel, Truveo, Tu-Voz, Tuaw, TV Squad, URLesque, AOL Videos, WalletPop, Winamp, and WOW.com. Although the types of

6

content (e.g., articles, videos, recipes, emails, product information, advertisements, etc.) may vary from website to website, each website performs the function described above namely, comparing content items to determine whether they are related and displaying those related content items. The hardware and software associated with the AOL websites identified above and any other AOL websites that perform this function infringe at least claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 77, and 80 of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

22. Defendant AOL operates the AOL Spam Filter as part of its AOL Mail website and service. When a new email is received by AOL Mail, the hardware and software associated with the AOL Spam Filter categorize the new email as either spam or not spam. The categorization is based at least in part on a comparison between the new email and other emails that have been received by AOL Mail. The hardware and software associated with the AOL Spam Filter have infringed and continue to infringe at least claims 39, 40, 43, 82, 83 and 86 of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

23. Defendant Apple has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Apple operates the Apple.com store, iTunes, App Stores, and Apple TV systems, each of which provides content such as multimedia content, applications, and/or product information to users. In order to help users find additional content that may be of interest, the software and hardware that operate these systems compare the available content items to determine whether they are related. When a user views a particular content item, the Apple systems generate displays of related content items so as to inform the user that the related items may be of interest. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 7, when a user views a particular music album on iTunes, the

7

iTunes system displays both the selected music album (identified by the red box) and links to other related music items (identified by the green boxes). The hardware and software associated with the Apple websites and systems identified above and any other Apple websites and systems that perform this function infringe at least claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 77, and 80 of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

24. Defendant eBay has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. eBay operates the eBay.com and Half.com websites, which provide content such as product listings and advertisements to users. In order to help users find additional content that may be of interest, the software and hardware that operate these websites compare the available content items to determine whether they are related. When a user views a particular content item, the eBay.com and Half.com websites generate displays of related content items so as to inform the user that the related items may be of interest. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 8, when a user views a particular product listing on eBay.com, the eBay.com website displays both the selected product information (identified by the orange box) and links to other related products (identified by the green boxes). The hardware and software associated with the eBay websites identified above and any other eBay websites that perform this function infringe at least claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 77, and 80 of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

25. Defendant Facebook has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Facebook operates the Facebook.com website, which provides content such as profile information, photos, event information, and

8

messages to users. In order to help users find additional content that may be of interest, the software and hardware that operate this website compare the available content items to determine whether they are related. When a user views a particular content item, the Facebook.com website generates a display of related content items so as to inform the user that the related items may be of interest. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 9, when a user views a particular photo page on Facebook.com, the Facebook.com website displays both the selected photo information (identified by the red box) and links to other related photos (identified by the green boxes). Another example of infringing functionality is demonstrated by user profile pages, which display photos and profiles of other users that are related to the profile being viewed. The hardware and software associated with the Facebook.com website that perform this function infringe at least claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 77, and 80 of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

26. Defendant Google has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Google operates many websites that provide articles, videos, advertisements, and other types of content to users. In order to help users find additional content items that may be of interest, the software and hardware that operate the websites compare the available content items to determine whether they are related.

When a user views a particular content item, the Google websites generate displays of related content items so as to inform the user that the related content items may be of interest. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 10, when a user views a particular piece of financial information on the Google Finance website, the website displays both the selected financial information (identified by the red box) and links to other related financial

9

information, articles, and advertisements (identified by the green boxes). Similar functionality is used by many websites that are owned and operated by Google, including Boutiques.com, Google Products, Gmail, Google Books, Google Finance, Google Videos, Google Knol, Google Groups, Google Desktop, Google Maps, Orkut, and Google Search.

Although the types of content (e.g., articles, videos, financial information, emails, product information, advertisements, etc.) may vary from website to website, each website performs the function described abovenamely, comparing content items to determine whether they are related and displaying those related content items. The hardware and software associated with the Google websites identified above and any other Google websites that perform this function infringe at least claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 38, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 77, 80 and 81 of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

27. Defendant Google operates the Google AdSense and Google Display Network systems that provide contextual advertisements to third party publishers. In order to help users find advertisements that may be of interest, Googles hardware and software compare the content on the third party publishers websites to advertisements to determine whether they are related. When a user views a particular content item on a third party publishers website, related Google advertisements are also provided to the user. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 11, when a user views an article on the About.com website (identified by the red box), the user also receives related Google advertisements (identified by the green boxes). The hardware and software associated with the Google AdSense and Google Display Network systems have infringed and continue to infringe at least claims 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 67, 70, 71, 74, 77, and 80 of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

10

28. Defendant Google operates the Gmail Spam Filter as part of its Gmail website and service. When a new email is received by Gmail, the hardware and software associated with the Gmail Spam Filter categorize the new email as either spam or not spam. The categorization is based at least in part on a comparison between the new email and other emails that have been received by Gmail. The hardware and software associated with the Gmail Spam Filter have infringed and continue to infringe at least claims 39, 40, 43, 82, 83 and 86 of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

29. Defendant Google operates an automated book classification system as part of its Google Books website and service. When new book information is received by Google, the hardware and software associated with the Google Books classification system indexes and categorizes the book. The categorization is based at least in part on a comparison between the new book information and information related to other books that have been indexed and categorized by Google Books. The hardware and software associated with the book classification system have infringed and continue to infringe at least claims 39, 40, 43, 82, 83 and 86 of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

30. Defendant Netflix has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Netflix operates the Netflix.com website, which provides content such as movie and television show information to users. In order to help users find additional content that may be of interest, the software and hardware that operate this website compare the available content items to determine whether they are related.

When a user views a particular content item, the Netflix.com website generates a display of related content items so as to inform the user that the related items may be of interest. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 12, when a user views a movie page on Netflix.com,

11

the Netflix.com website displays both the selected movie information (identified by the red box) and links to other related movies (identified by the green boxes). The hardware and software associated with the Netflix.com website that perform this function infringe at least claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 77, and 80 of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

31. Defendant Office Depot has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Office Depot operates websites such as OfficeDepot.com and TechDepot.com that provide content such as product information to users. In order to help users find additional content that may be of interest, the software and hardware that operate these websites compare the available content items to determine whether they are related. When a user views a particular content item, the Office Depot websites generate displays of related content items so as to inform the user that the related items may be of interest. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 13, when a user views a product page on OfficeDepot.com, the OfficeDepot.com website displays both the selected product information (identified by the red box) and links to other related products (identified by the green boxes). The hardware and software associated with the Office Depot websites identified above and any other Office Depot websites that perform this function infringe at least claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 77, and 80 of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

32. Defendant OfficeMax has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. OfficeMax operates websites such as

12

OfficeMax.com1 that provide content such as product information to users. In order to help users find additional content that may be of interest, the software and hardware that operate these websites compare the available content items to determine whether they are related.

When a user views a particular content item, the Office Depot websites generate displays of related content items so as to inform the user that the related items may be of interest. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 14, when a user views a product page on OfficeMax.com, the OfficeMax.com website displays both the selected product information (identified by the red box) and links to other related products (identified by the green boxes).

The hardware and software associated with the OfficeMax websites identified above and any other OfficeMax websites that perform this function infringe at least claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 77, and 80 of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

33. Defendant Staples has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Staples operates websites such as Staples.com2 that provide content such as product information to users. In order to help users find additional content that may be of interest, the software and hardware that operate these websites compare the available content items to determine whether they are related. When a user views a particular content item, the Staples websites generate displays of related content items so as to inform the user that the related items may be of interest. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 15, when a user views a product page on Staples.com, the

13

Staples.com website displays both the selected product information (identified by the red box) and links to other related products (identified by the green boxes). The hardware and software associated with the Staples websites identified above and any other Staples websites that perform this function infringe at least claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 77, and 80 of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

34. Defendant Yahoo has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Yahoo operates many websites that provide articles, videos, advertisements, and other types of content to users. In order to help users find additional content items that may be of interest, the software and hardware that operate the websites compare the available content items to determine whether they are related.

When a user views a particular content item, the Yahoo websites generate displays of related content items so as to inform the user that the related content items may be of interest. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 16, when a user views a particular article on the Yahoo Finance website, the website displays both the article (identified by the red box) and related stock information, advertisements, articles, blog posts, and message boards (identified by the green boxes). Similar functionality is used by many websites that are owned and operated by Yahoo, including Flickr, Hotjobs, Rivals, Yahoo Advertising, Yahoo Alerts, Yahoo Auto, Yahoo Avatar, Yahoo Biz, Yahoo Bookmarks, Yahoo Buzz, Yahoo Education, Yahoo Entertainment, Yahoo Events, Yahoo Finance, Yahoo Games, Yahoo Green, Yahoo Groups, Yahoo Health, Yahoo Kids, Yahoo Lifestyle, Yahoo Maps, Yahoo Mail, Yahoo Mobile, Yahoo Movies, Yahoo Music, My Yahoo, Yahoo News, Yahoo OMG!, Yahoo People,

14

Yahoo Pulse, Yahoo Real Estate, Yahoo Shine, Yahoo Shopping, Yahoo Small Business, Yahoo Sports, Yahoo Travel, Yahoo TV, Yahoo Video, Yahoo Video Games, Yahoo Weather, Yahoo Widgets, Yahoo Answers, and Yahoo Local. Although the types of content (e.g., articles, videos, financial information, job postings, emails, product information, advertisements, etc.) may vary from website to website, each website performs the function described above namely, comparing content items to determine whether they are related and displaying those related content items. The hardware and software associated with the Yahoo websites identified above and any other Yahoo websites that perform this function infringe at least claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 77, and 80 of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

35. Defendant Yahoo operates the Content Match for Yahoo Search Marketing and Yahoo Advertising Solutions systems that provide contextual advertisements to third party publishers. In order to help users find advertisements that may be of interest, Yahoo compares the content on the third party publishers websites to advertisements to determine whether they are related. When a user views a particular content item on a third party publishers website, related Yahoo advertisements are also provided to the user. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 17, when a user views a product on the Buy.com website (identified by the red box), the user also receives related Yahoo advertisements (identified by the green box). The hardware and software associated with the Yahoo Content Match and Yahoo Advertising Solutions systems have infringed and continue to infringe at least claims 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 67, 70, 71, 74, 77, and 80 of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

15

36. Defendant Yahoo operates the Yahoo SpamGuard as part of its Yahoo Mail website and service. When a new email is received by Yahoo Mail, the hardware and software associated with the Yahoo SpamGuard categorize the new email as either spam or not spam. The categorization is based at least in part on a comparison between the new email and other emails that have been received by Yahoo Mail. The hardware and software associated with the Yahoo SpamGuard have infringed and continue to infringe at least claims 39, 40, 43, 82, 83 and 86 of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

37. Defendant YouTube has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. YouTube operates the YouTube.com website, which provides content such as videos and advertisements to users. In order to help users find additional content that may be of interest, the software and hardware that operate this website compare the available content items to determine whether they are related.

When a user views a particular content item, the YouTube.com website generates a display of related content items so as to inform the user that the related items may be of interest.

For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 18, when a user views a video page on YouTube.com, the YouTube.com website displays both the selected video information (identified by the red box) and links to other related videos and advertisements (identified by the green boxes). The hardware and software associated with the YouTube.com website that perform this function infringe at least claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 77, and 80 of the 507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

38. Defendants AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTubes acts of infringement have caused damage to Interval, and Interval is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages

16

Interval as a result of Defendants wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial.

Defendants infringement of Intervals exclusive rights under the 507 patent will continue to damage Interval, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court. Interval reserves the right to allege, after discovery, that Defendants infringement is willful and deliberate, entitling Interval to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,034,652

39. On March 7, 2000, United States Patent No. 6,034,652 (the 652 patent) was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device. The 652 patent describes an invention that enables information to be provided to a user in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract the user from his primary interaction with an apparatus such as, for example, a computer or television. The 652 patent is related to United States Patent No. 6,788,314, which is described in further detail below. Interval was assigned the 652 patent and continues to hold all rights and interest in the 652 patent. A true and correct copy of the 652 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.

40. Defendant AOL has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 17, and 18 of the 652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, distributing, and encouraging customers to use the AOL Instant Messenger and Lifestream software. The AOL Instant Messenger software infringes by displaying information including, e.g., email and Buddy List alerts, to a user in an unobtrusive manner that occupies the peripheral attention of the user. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 19, when a buddys status

17

changes, the AOL Instant Messenger software displays a pop-up notification in the lower right corner of the screen for a short period of time. As demonstrated in Exhibit 20, the Lifestream software infringes by displaying information including, e.g., recent social network and YouTube content, to a user in an unobtrusive manner that occupies the peripheral attention of the user.

41. Defendant Apple has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 15, 16, and 18 of the 652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, selling, distributing, and encouraging customers to use computers containing Apple Dashboard and the associated widgets software. Apple Dashboard and the associated widgets software infringes by displaying information to a user in an unobtrusive manner that occupies the peripheral attention of the user. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 21, Apple Dashboard creates a transparent overlay that includes information such as weather and sports scores. As described by Apple:

With a single click, Dashboard appears, complete with widgets that bring you a world of information real-time weather, stock tickers, flight information, and more instantly. Dashboard disappears just as easily, so you can get back to what you were doing.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/what-is-macosx/apps-and-utilities.html

42. Defendant Google has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of the 652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, distributing, and encouraging customers to use the Gmail Notifier, Google Talk, and Google Talk Labs Edition software. The Gmail Notifier, Google Talk, and Google Talk Labs Edition software infringes by displaying information including, e.g., email and/or friend status alerts, to a user in an unobtrusive manner that occupies the peripheral attention of the user. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 22, when a user receives a new email, the

18

Google Talk Labs Edition software displays a pop-up notification in the lower right corner of the screen for a short period of time.

43. Defendant Google has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, and 18 of the 652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, distributing, and encouraging customers to use Google Desktop and the associated gadgets software. Google Desktop and the associated gadgets software infringes by displaying information to a user in an unobtrusive manner that occupies the peripheral attention of the user. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 23, Google Desktop creates an unobtrusive sidebar that includes information such as news, photos, stock quotes, and YouTube videos.

44. Defendant Google has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 4, 8, 11, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of the 652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, selling, distributing, and encouraging customers to use devices containing the Android Operating System and associated software such as Text Messaging, Google Talk, Google Voice, and Calendar. Devices containing the Android Operating System and associated software infringe by displaying information including, e.g., text messages, Google Voice messages, chat messages, and calendar events, to a user of a mobile device in an unobtrusive manner that occupies the peripheral attention of the user. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 24, when a user receives a new Google Voice message, the Android Operating System and Google Voice software display a notification in the status bar screen for a short period of time.

45. Defendant Yahoo has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 17, and 18 of the 652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, distributing, and encouraging customers to use the Yahoo Messenger software. The Yahoo Messenger

19

software infringes by displaying information including, e.g., email and/or friend status alerts, to a user in an unobtrusive manner that occupies the peripheral attention of the user.

For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 25, when a friends status changes, the Yahoo Messenger software displays a pop-up notification in the lower right corner of the screen for a short period of time.

46. Defendant Yahoo has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 15, 16, and 18 of the 652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, distributing, and encouraging customers to use Yahoo Widgets and the associated widgets software. Yahoo Widgets and the associated widgets software infringes by displaying information to a user in an unobtrusive manner that occupies the peripheral attention of the user. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 26, Yahoo Widgets creates unobtrusive sidebars that include information such as news, photos, stock quotes, and weather information.

47. Defendant Yahoo has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 4, 5, and 15 of the 652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, selling, distributing, and encouraging customers to use Yahoo Connected TV and the associated widgets software. Yahoo Connected TV and the associated widgets software infringes by displaying information to a user in an unobtrusive manner that occupies the peripheral attention of the user. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 27, Yahoo Connected TV and the Yahoo News widget create an unobtrusive sidebar that displays recent news headlines.

48. Defendants AOL, Apple, Google, and Yahoos acts of infringement have caused damage to Interval, and Interval is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained by Interval as a result of Defendants wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof

20

at trial. Defendants infringement of Intervals exclusive rights under the 652 patent will continue to damage Interval, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court. Interval reserves the right to allege, after discovery, that Defendants infringement is willful and deliberate, entitling Interval to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,788,314

49. On September 7, 2004, United States Patent No. 6,788,314 (the 314 patent) was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device. The 314 patent, which is related to the 652 patent, also describes an invention that enables information to be provided to a user in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract the user from his primary interaction with an apparatus such as, for example, a computer or television. Interval was assigned the 314 patent and continues to hold all rights and interest in the 314 patent. A true and correct copy of the 314 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

50. Defendant AOL has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 of the 314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, distributing, and encouraging customers to use the AOL Instant Messenger and Lifestream software and by making and using the hardware and software that operate the AOL Instant Messenger and Lifestream system infrastructure. AOLs infringement of the 314 patent results from substantially the same activities as its infringement of the 652 patent, described above in ¶ 40.

21

51. Defendant Apple has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 of the 314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, selling, distributing, and encouraging customers to use computers containing Apple Dashboard and the associated widgets software and by making and using the hardware and software that operate the Apple Dashboard system infrastructure. Apples infringement of the 314 patent results from substantially the same activities as its infringement of the 652 patent, described above in ¶ 41.

52. Defendant Google has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 of the 314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, distributing, and encouraging customers to use Google Talk, and Google Talk Labs Edition software and by making and using the hardware and software that operate the Google Talk and Google Talk Labs Edition system infrastructure. Googles infringement of the 314 patent that relates to Google Talk and Google Talk Labs Edition results from substantially the same activities as its infringement of the 652 patent, described above in ¶ 42.

53. Defendant Google has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 of the 314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, distributing, and encouraging customers to use Google Desktop and the associated gadgets software and by making and using the hardware and software that operate the Google Desktop infrastructure. Googles infringement of the 314 patent that relates to Google Desktop results from substantially the same activities as its infringement of the 652 patent, described above in ¶ 43.

54. Defendant Google has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 of the 314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, selling,

22

distributing, and encouraging customers to use devices containing the Android Operating System and associated software such as Text Messaging, Google Talk, Google Voice, and Calendar, and by making and using the hardware and software that operate the Android and Android Market infrastructure. Googles infringement of the 314 patent that relates to Android results from substantially the same activities as its infringement of the 652 patent, described above in ¶ 44.

55. Defendant Yahoo has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 of the 314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, distributing, and encouraging customers to use the Yahoo Messenger software and by making and using the hardware and software that operate the Yahoo Messenger infrastructure. Yahoos infringement of the 314 patent that relates to Yahoo Messenger results from substantially the same activities as its infringement of the 652 patent, described above in ¶ 45.

56. Defendant Yahoo has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 of the 314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, distributing, and encouraging customers to use Yahoo Widgets and the associated widgets software and by making and using the hardware and software that operate the Yahoo Widgets infrastructure. Yahoos infringement of the 314 patent that relates to Yahoo Widgets results from substantially the same activities as its infringement of the 652 patent, described above in ¶ 46.

57. Defendant Yahoo has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 of the 314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, selling, distributing, and encouraging customers to use Yahoo Connected TV and the

23

associated widgets software and by making and using the hardware and software that operate the Yahoo Connected TV infrastructure. Yahoos infringement of the 314 patent that relates to Yahoo Connected TV results from substantially the same activities as its infringement of the 652 patent, described above in ¶ 47.

58. Defendants AOL, Apple, Google, and Yahoos acts of infringement have caused damage to Interval, and Interval is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained by Interval as a result of Defendants wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. Defendants infringement of Intervals exclusive rights under the 314 patent will continue to damage Interval, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court. Interval reserves the right to allege, after discovery, that Defendants infringement is willful and deliberate, entitling Interval to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,757,682

59. On June 29, 2004, United States Patent No. 6,757,682 (the 682 patent) was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest. The 682 patent describes a system that receives indications from users that online content is of current interest, processes the indications, and alerts other users of the interesting content. Interval was assigned the 682 patent and continues to hold all rights and interest in the 682 patent. A true and correct copy of the 682 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.

60. Defendant AOL has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. AOL operates the AOL Shopping website, which

24

provides product recommendations to users. The determination of which products are to be recommended is based at least in part on other users activities, including, for example, viewing, rating, reviewing, sharing, or buying products. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 28, the AOL Shopping website alerts users of products that they might also like. Exhibit 28 also demonstrates how users may perform activities (e.g., reviewing, rating or purchasing products) that can be used to generate recommendations for other users. The hardware and software associated with the AOL Shopping website that perform this function infringe at least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

61. Defendant Apple has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Apple operates iTunes, the App Stores, and Apple TV, each of which provides content recommendations to users. The determination of which content is to be recommended is based at least in part on other users activities, including, for example, viewing, rating, reviewing, or purchasing content items. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 29, iTunes alerts users of content items that Viewers Also Bought. Exhibit 29 also demonstrates how users may perform activities (e.g., reviewing, rating, buying, or renting content items) that can be used to generate recommendations for other users. The hardware and software associated with iTunes, the App Stores, and Apple TV that perform this function infringe at least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

62. Apple operates iTunes Ping, which alerts users of content and activity within iTunes and the Ping community. The determination of which content and activity is to be provided to the user is based at least in part on the other users activities, including, for

25

example, posting content or liking or commenting on content or activity. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 30, Ping alerts users of some of the available content or activity within the Ping community via the Recent Activity feed. Exhibit 30 also demonstrates how users may perform activities (e.g., posting, liking, or commenting) that can be used to determine which content and activity appears in the Recent Activity feeds of other users.

The hardware and software associated with Ping that perform this function infringe at least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, and 20 of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

63. Defendant eBay has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. eBay operates the eBay.com and Half.com websites, which provides product recommendations to users. The determination of which products are to be recommended is based at least in part on other users activities, including, for example, viewing, watching, rating, or buying products, or reviewing sellers. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 31, the eBay.com website alerts users of products that they may also be interested by putting the products in the Check out the most watched section. Exhibit 31 also demonstrates how users may perform activities (e.g., buying or watching items) that can be used to generate recommendations for other users. The hardware and software associated with the eBay websites identified above and any other eBay websites that perform this function infringe at least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

64. Defendant Facebook has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Facebook operates the Facebook.com website, which alerts users of content and activity of other Facebook users. The determination of which content and activity is to be provided to the user is based at least in

26

part on the other users activities including, for example, sharing content or liking or commenting on content or activity. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 32, Facebook alerts users of some of the available content via the News Feed.

Exhibit 32 also demonstrates how users may perform activities (e.g., sharing, liking, or commenting) that can be used to determine which content and activity appears in the News Feeds of other users. The Facebook.com website also alerts users of other users with whom they may wish to become friends. The determination of which users to recommend is based at least in part on the other users activities including, for example, befriending users, joining networks, and providing profile information. The hardware and software associated with the Facebook.com website that perform the above-described functions infringe at least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

65. Defendant Google has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Google operates multiple websites that recommend content such as blogs, news stories, products, and articles, to users. The determination of which content is to be recommended is based at least in part on other users activities, including, for example, viewing, starring, sharing, or commenting on the content. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 33, the Google Reader website alerts users of online articles or blog postings that they may be interested in. Exhibit 33 also demonstrates how users may perform activities (e.g., starring, liking, or sharing) that can be used to generate recommendations for other users. Similar functionality is used by many websites that are owned and operated by Google, including Google Blog Search, Google Knol, Google News, and Google Products. Although the types of content (e.g., blogs, Knol articles, news articles, and products, etc.) and the types of user activities that are

27

used to generate alerts (e.g., viewing, starring, liking, etc.) may vary from website to website, each website performs the function described above. The hardware and software associated with the Google websites identified above and any other Google websites that perform this function infringe at least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

66. Google operates the Google Buzz system, which alerts users of content and activity of other Google Buzz users. The determination of which content and activity is to be provided to the user is based at least in part on the other users activities including, for example, sharing content or liking or commenting on content or activity. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 34, Google alerts users of some of the available content via the Buzz feed. Exhibit 34 also demonstrates how users may perform activities (e.g., sharing, liking, or commenting) that can be used to determine which content and activity appears in the Buzz feeds of other users. The hardware and software associated with the Google Buzz system that perform the above-described functions infringe at least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, 17, and 20 of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

67. Google operates the Orkut.com website, which alerts users of other users with whom they may wish to become friends. The determination of which users to recommend is based at least in part on the other users activities including, for example, befriending users, joining communities, and updating profile information. The hardware and software associated with the Orkut.com website that perform the above-described functions infringe at least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 16, 17, and 20 of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

28

68. Defendant Netflix has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Netflix operates the Netflix.com website, which provides movie and television show recommendations to users. The determination of which media items are to be recommended is based at least in part on other users activities, including, for example, viewing, watching, or buying products, or reviewing sellers. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 35, the Netflix.com website alerts users of movies and television shows that they may also be interested by putting the products in the Movies You'll Love [heart symbol] section. Exhibit 35 also demonstrates how users may perform activities (e.g., watching, rating, or selecting not interested) that can be used to generate recommendations for other users. The hardware and software associated with the Netflix.com website that perform this function infringe at least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

69. Defendant Office Depot has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Office Depot operates the OfficeDepot.com and TechDepot.com websites, which provide product recommendations to users. The determination of which products are to be recommended is based at least in part on other users activities, including, for example, viewing, rating, reviewing, or buying products. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 36, the OfficeDepot.com website alerts users of products that they may also be interested in. Exhibit 36 also demonstrates how users may perform activities (e.g., reviewing or adding products to their shopping carts or shopping lists) that can be used to generate recommendations for other users. The hardware and software associated with the Office Depot websites identified above and any other

29

Office Depot websites that perform this function infringe at least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

70. Defendant OfficeMax has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. OfficeMax operates websites such as OfficeMax.com,3 which provides product recommendations to users. The determination of which products are to be recommended is based at least in part on other users activities, including, for example, viewing, rating, reviewing, or buying products. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 37, the OfficeMax.com website alerts users of products that they may also be interested in. Exhibit 37 also demonstrates how users may perform activities (e.g., reviewing or adding products to their shopping carts or Favorites) that can be used to generate recommendations for other users. The hardware and software associated with the OfficeMax websites identified above and any other OfficeMax websites that perform this function infringe at least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

71. Defendant Staples has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Staples operates websites such as Staples.com,4 which provides product recommendations to users. The determination of which products are to be recommended is based at least in part on other users activities, including, for example, viewing, rating, reviewing, or buying products. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 38, the Staples.com website alerts users of products that they may also be interested in.

30

Exhibit 38 also demonstrates how users may perform activities (e.g., reviewing or adding products to their shopping carts or Favorites) that can be used to generate recommendations for other users. The hardware and software associated with the Staples websites identified above and any other Staples websites that perform this function infringe at least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

72. Defendant Yahoo has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Yahoo operates multiple websites that recommend content such as products, articles, blog posts, photos, and music to users. The determination of which content is to be recommended is based at least in part on other users activities, including, for example, viewing, sharing, rating, or commenting on the content.

For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 39, the Yahoo Buzz website alerts users of online articles or blog postings that they may be interested in by identifying them as Top Buzz. Exhibit 39 also demonstrates how users may perform activities (e.g., Buzzing up or Buzzing down) that can be used to generate recommendations for other users. Similar functionality is used by many websites that are owned and operated by Yahoo, including Delicious, Flickr, Yahoo Shopping, Yahoo Music, and Yahoo Answers. Although the types of content (e.g., articles, blog posts, photos, product information, music, etc.) and the types of user activities that are used to generate alerts (e.g., viewing, sharing, commenting, rating, etc.) may vary from website to website, each website performs the function described above.

The hardware and software associated with the Yahoo websites identified above and any

31

other Yahoo websites that perform this function infringe at least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

73. Defendant YouTube has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. YouTube operates the YouTube.com website, which provides video recommendations to users. The determination of which videos are to be recommended is based at least in part on other users activities, including, for example, viewing, liking, sharing, or commenting on videos. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 40, the YouTube.com website alerts users of videos that they may also be interested by putting the products in the Suggestions section. Exhibit 40 also demonstrates how users may perform activities (e.g., liking, sharing, commenting, or adding a video to their favorites) that can be used to generate recommendations for other users. The hardware and software associated with the YouTube.com website that perform this function infringe at least claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the 682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

74. Defendants AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTubes acts of infringement have caused damage to Interval, and Interval is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained by Interval as a result of Defendants wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. Defendants infringement of Intervals exclusive rights under the 682 patent will continue to damage Interval, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court. Interval reserves the right to allege, after discovery, that Defendants infringement is willful and deliberate, entitling Interval to increased damages

32

under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

JURY DEMAND

75. Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Interval respectfully requests a trial by jury on all issues properly triable by jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC requests entry of judgment in its favor and against Defendants as follows:

a) Declaration that (1) Defendants AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTube have infringed, directly and/or indirectly, U.S. Patent No. 6,263,507; (2) Defendants AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTube have infringed, directly and/or indirectly, U.S. Patent No. 6,757,682; and (3) Defendants AOL, Apple, Google, and Yahoo have infringed, directly and/or indirectly, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,034,652 and 6,788,314.

b) Awarding the damages arising out of (1) Defendants AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTubes infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,263,507; (2) Defendants AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTubes infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,682; and (3) Defendants AOL, Apple, Google, and Yahoos infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,034,652 and 6,788,314, to Interval, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest, in an amount according to proof;

33

c) Permanently enjoining Defendants and their respective officers, agents, employees, and those acting in privity with them, from further infringement, including contributory infringement and/or inducing infringement, of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,263,507, 6,034,652, 6,788,314, and 6,757,682, or in the alternative, awarding a royalty for post-judgment infringement;

d) Awarding attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 or as otherwise permitted by law; and

e) Awarding such other costs and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: December 28, 2010

/s/ Justin A. Nelson
Justin A. Nelson
WA Bar No. 31864
[email]
Edgar Sargent
WA Bar No. 28283
[email]
Matthew R. Berry
WA Bar No. 37364
[email]
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.

34

Eric J. Enger
[email] [email]
Nathan J. Davis
[email]

35

1 OfficeMax operates a number of websites that are not open to the general public, including maxbuyer.officemax.com, government.officemax.com, and officemaxsolutions.com. To the extent other OfficeMax websites comprise the accused functionality, they infringe the 507 patent as well.

2 Staples operates a number of websites that are not open to the general public, including eway.com, stapleslink.com, and staples4government.com. To the extent other Staples websites comprise the accused functionality, they infringe the 507 patent as well.

3 OfficeMax operates a number of websites that are not open to the general public, including maxbuyer.officemax.com, government.officemax.com, and officemaxsolutions.com. To the extent other OfficeMax websites comprise the accused functionality, they infringe the 682 patent as well.

4 Staples operates a number of websites that are not open to the general public, including eway.com, stapleslink.com, and staples4government.com. To the extent other Staples websites comprise the accused functionality, they infringe the 682 patent as well.


  


Allen v. World and Dog - First Amended Complaint - Updated | 366 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Allen v. World and Dog - First Amended Complaint
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 09:29 AM EST
404 Error

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks discussion Thread
Authored by: complex_number on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 09:33 AM EST
don't forget to add a clicky to the link being discussed


---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Thread
Authored by: complex_number on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 09:34 AM EST
give the before & after so PJ can fix them


---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Thread
Authored by: complex_number on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 09:35 AM EST
You know the rules....


---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Paul Allen's Interval Licensing patents the Internet
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 09:48 AM EST
There, the corrected headline .. :)

"Browsing .. Audiovisual Data .. AOL .. compare related items .. Apple .. compare related items .. eBay .. provides advertisements to users .. Facebook .. compare related content .. Google .. compare related content .. Netflix .. compare related content .. OfficeMax.com .. compare related content .. Staples.com .. compare related content .. Yahoo .. compare related content .. YouTube .. compare related content ... link

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES goes here
Authored by: ankylosaurus on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 09:51 AM EST
Happy Transcribing.

---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail

[ Reply to This | # ]

Allen v. World and Dog - First Amended Complaint
Authored by: tanner andrews on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 09:53 AM EST

So far I haven't seen anything particularly inventive in the claims.

The accused functionality of occupying peripheral attention seems almost as old as complex machinery. Have there not been green lights and idiot lights on airplanes, cars, locomotives, and ships since long before 2000?

The accused functionality of making recommendations is novel in its brazenness, if not in furnishing anything sufficient to educate a practitioner in the field. I seem to recall asking friends about things under consideration more than 10 years before the patent was granted. In fact, a simple suggestion that I was thinking of going to such a place to eat would often elicit related information such as ``try the XXX'' or ``do not go there, YYY is better''. An ELIZA database could do that back in the 1980s.

The expanded complaint may satisfy the federal notice pleading standards; I won't opine there because Florida is a fact pleading state. I can see why the plaintiff was reluctant to give even the detail that it gave, however, because it makes it clear that there is no patent-worthy invention being infringed. Obvious is the word that comes to mind.

---
I am not your lawyer; please ignore above message.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Outlook and the other MS Office apps ...
Authored by: Terrier Tribe on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 10:15 AM EST
... in general seem to violate all of these patents. Why isn't MS included in
the -- oh, wait, never mind.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Seattle Times is infringing
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 10:39 AM EST
It has been noticed that the news article at the Seattle Times, just after a screenshot of iTunes demonstrating how these evil people at Apple are infringing on Paul Allen's most valuable and innovative patent, has a "Recommend" button and a section "You might also be interested in..." which are clearly infringing on Paul Allen's patent as well.

Seattle Times, be prepared to be added to the court case!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pop up ads on cable TV
Authored by: DCFusor on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 10:42 AM EST
Would also seem to be peripheral attention issues. Hate those things, but it
seems if they really believe they own things like this, they'd have to sue the
media as well.
As they say on another forum, GoodLuckWithThat. Even the politicians are afraid
of those guys.

Score 10 for hubris, -10 million for idiocy.

Maybe this really will get software patents looked at as a bad concept and
something that should never have been done.

Know anyone in big media? Might not hurt to give them a heads-up, this is
potentially mainstream fodder.


---
Why guess, when you can know? Measure it!

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Don't be naive - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 11:06 AM EST
Defence strategy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 10:57 AM EST
Just wondering: Would it be a good defence strategy to go to as many US court
websites and look for patent infringements? Like saying "Yes, Google, Apple,
Youtube and this other dozen companies are doing what Mr. Allen claims is his
invention, but so is the US court at xxx, the court at xxx, the court at xxx"
and
so on. These patents are so ridiculous, anyone with a website will be
infringing
in some way.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft as a company is failing. Allen is trying to dominate all competition
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 10:59 AM EST
Sad, really sad.
What can you expect from a gang of thief's.
Gates, Allen, and Ballmer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Has the USPTO gotten a Licence to these patents?
Authored by: AntiFUD on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 11:18 AM EST
One can only assume that since, by definition, the USPTO is the ultimate source
of knowledge on the scope of the patents that it has issued, it has licenses for
the applicable patent claims the Interval Licensing is making.

Please note that I haven't finished reading the new Complaint yet.

However, I did take a quick look at the www.uspto.gov home page, and note that
it gives a number of 'indicators' of items that maybe of interest to the browser
of said website (presumably using the internet):

First, in a box titled "USPTO Self Service", with a sub-heading
'Information Services and Data Products' and a dropdown box containing " -
Select a Product or Service - ".

Second, third and fourth, scrolling down the page, we get three columns headed:
Patents; Trademarks; and IP Law & Policy. In these boxed columns are a
number of links to specific pages that 'may be of interest to the user of the
website'.

Or does the US Gubmint have an inalienable right to ignore the monopoly(ies) it
grants to its subjects^W citizens^W corporate entities and/or patent trolls?

I also wonder who would defend a government agency, such as the USPTO, in a case
brought by an entity such as Interval Licensing, without having serious
conflicts of interest. Perhaps WIPO?

---
IANAL - Free to Fight FUD - "to this very day"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Allen v. World and Dog - First Amended Complaint
Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 11:29 AM EST
A monstrous carbuncle rather than a mere pimple. One of these days the USA will
wake up and find that it has no high tech goods. The foreign companies that make
them will have figured that there is sufficient market outside of the USA and it
is a whole less hassle and a whole lot cheaper to supply that instead.


---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Allen v. World and Dog - First Amended Complaint
Authored by: DarkPhoenix on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 11:29 AM EST
Unfortunately for these thieving creeps, I got a new smartphone for Christmas,
and I specifically asked for an Android phone. Plus, my mother got one
specifically because she wanted the same kind of phone as me (being the tech guy
of the family).

I support Android, not money-grubbing greedy businessmen.

---
Please note that sections in quotes are NOT copied verbatim from articles, but
are my interpretations of the articles.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Allen v. World and Dog - severing
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 12:24 PM EST
Why are all these defendants linked in one suit? They may all allegedly be
infringing but otherwise I see no common ground between them. Should we expect
each of the defendants to file to have the suit against them separated out so
they only have to deal with their own infringement? For example, why should
OfficeMax or Staples have to deal with 6,034,652 when they are not (that I could
see) alleged to have infringed it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I can't speak for anyone else...
Authored by: Lazarus on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 01:22 PM EST
But I have three brothers and a crazy mother. That blunted me pretty well.

---
Darl McBride: The Uwe Boll of the business management world.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Allen v. World and Dog - First Amended Complaint
Authored by: ile on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 01:38 PM EST
I do not think that my emotional growth was stunted, but I could command
neither disgust nor mirth.

I was, rather, astounded: in which (legal) universe is this at all specific?

It is my (probably wrong) understanding that the value of a patent lies in the
specifity of its claims. So the plaintiff would have to state precisely _how_
the others infringe the claims (granted, discovery comes later, blah, blah,
blah). But here only the general title of the patent is given, and the general
idea of recommending and the general idea of "popups" are presented as
infringed. There is no way that the claims of the patent are as broad as the
title. If they were they would have been tossed out completely, broken as the
system(s) might be (European here).

Can this in any way be understood as a properly amended complaint?

I am honestly asking, I consider myself fully ignorant and ready to be
instructed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Barratry is a misdemeanor in state of Washington
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 03:01 PM EST
If Wikipedia is to be trusted, barratry can be a criminal misdemeanor in the
state of Washington. Maybe Google can give Allen a criminal record, to go along
with Gates (see Albuquerque P.D.).

How many amended complaints does it take to add up to barratry?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The USPTO and it's apparent inability to find prior art...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 03:17 PM EST

Um... wow:

For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 6, when a user views a particular news article on the AOL News website, the website displays both the article (identified by the red box) and links to other related news articles (identified by the green boxes).
Seems to me that describes basic web search functionality. The earliest search engine that I was aware of using was Archie. It truly is amazing that the USPTO granted a patent that could be used against a product created 11 years before the patent was issued.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Archie didn't do that - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 03 2011 @ 08:50 PM EST
    • You sure? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 07 2011 @ 04:53 PM EST
One last, then I'll shut up on the subject ..... or maybe not ;)
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 03:41 PM EST

Staples operates websites such as Staples.com2 that provide content such as product information to users. In order to help users find additional content that may be of interest, the software and hardware that operate these websites compare the available content items to determine whether they are related. When a user views a particular content item, the Staples websites generate displays of related content items so as to inform the user that the related items may be of interest.
Next up on the lawsuit list: Neiman Marcus.
    Defendent Neiman Marcus operates a business that produces a catalog. In order to assist the customer of finding related content, Neiman Marcus deliberately organized the catalog in such a fashion to put all the toys in a grouping, all lugage in another section, etc.
For shame on Mr. Paul Allen for trying to lay claim to such obvious implementations.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior Art
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 03:42 PM EST
Should there not be a demand with a patent application that the applicant have
done his due diligence and discovered no prior art?

And if the patent is denied on such basis, should there then not be a penalty
assessed by the PTO for failure to perform due diligence?

Right now, legal documents call for a notary to sign off. Perhaps we need to
have something similar in terms of patents, a profession that the applicant
would have to pay to look for prior art. To keep them honest, have them
penalized if the patent is later revoked due to prior art.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OK, I couldn't shut up....
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 03:47 PM EST

Man... I just couldn't resist considering the next patent listed:

39. On March 7, 2000, United States Patent No. 6,034,652 (the 652 patent) was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device. The 652 patent describes an invention that enables information to be provided to a user in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract the user from his primary interaction with an apparatus such as, for example, a computer or television. The 652 patent is related to United States Patent No. 6,788,314, which is described in further detail below. Interval was assigned the 652 patent and continues to hold all rights and interest in the 652 patent. A true and correct copy of the 652 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
I'm afraid I infringe that patent... you see... in the lower corner of my computer I have a clock and calendar set up. Specifically an analog clock with the little minute hand wandering in circles like a hamster on a wheel.

I don't know how that clock would be different then a "dashboard on the desktop".... excepting, of course, the data it presents.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

300 patents, 1 decade
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 04:22 PM EST
They say they got 300 patents in less than 10 years.
Or about 30 patents a year.
Or about 3 patents a month.
Or about 1 patent every 12 days.

Now, patents are supposed to be things that are hard to think up, and thus
reward the successful creative thinking inventor.

Granted Thomas Edison acquired around 300 patents in 4 years, at the height of
his career. He also averaged around 20 a year outside that. Still, those patents
were mostly minor improvements in several families of categories (lights,
telephones, phonographs, motors, etc). But one very noticeable thing in that
pattern, is you'll see that the number of patents peaked very early, and then
drops off significantly. Whereas, we see software patents growing in number year
after year after year.

I find the issuing of 300 patents over a less than ten year period to be simply
ridiculous. Edison being an anomaly, and quite shrewd and not very ethical
businessman.

It should be possible to attack patents based on the fact that too many patents
are being issued in too short a frame of time. One should be able to "Look!
The examiners aren't doing their job and rejecting junk patents. Look at the
ridiculous numbers being issued! We should be able to fight these stupid patents
at a lower cost, and power hurdle of evidence, until they fix the patent
process."

Not going to happen I know, but it's the right thing to do. Not that software
patents should ever happen.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Don't blame the patent examiners
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 05:09 PM EST
I had a conversation with a patent examiner about a few weeks ago. I asked about
software patents and why they seem so obvious and get approved anyway.

I heard something I hadn't considered. The patent examiners have a quota to meet
and they can't simply reject something as obvious. They have to have a
defensible reason to reject a patent. Not only that, but patents these days are
usually only specific enough to be plausible and get a patent, but not actually
specific enough to construct the invention. Sort of like a protected trade
secret.

The patent examiners hate that they can't do the job as well as we'd like them
too, but they just can't reject an application based on their judgement.

So, lighten up on the patent people. They are trying. The blame really rests on
the shoulders of politicians, corporations, and, of course, the lawyers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The link to the history of the worlds real first browser
Authored by: jjock on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 05:26 PM EST
http://www.livinginternet.com/w/wi_browse.htm

Mosaic -- The First Global Web Browser
http://www.livinginternet.com/w/wi_mosaic.htm
Without much effort, here are two links that chart the course to
the real first commercial browser. I never personally used
Netscape, but I used its predecessor Mosaic which was a public
domain browser that worked extremely well on the Amiga.
The reason I am posting these links is that they contain many
other references that can be pursued for further instances of
prior art. They may have a browser of some sort patented, but
browsers existed before the patent with the features Allen and
his group are claiming they own.
Bob
I'm sure there will be more information surfacing, but I guess
what astounds me the most is the colossal gall of Paul Allen
and
his ilk.
This suit is a no brainer and I hope is can be proven to be
frivolous.
Bob

PS I apologize for having previously posted this response in
another thread, but I hit the wrong reply button.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The problem isn't software patents
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 06:49 PM EST

This document is Exhibit A for why software patents are an oozing pimple on the nose of the US legal system. Interval is suing because it can, and it would like to be paid by anyone using the Internet in a normal way, and it can because the US Patent Office thought it was good policy to rubber stamp stupid software patents right and left, with the idea that they could be vetted in litigation.

The problem is that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is rubber stamping everything. Software, hardware, business methods, you name it, if you file, they'll issue a patent for it. And if a court rules that they should tighten up the rules, they find away around the court ruling to loosen them again.

The only viable fix is to close the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. If you don't close it, companies will find other ways to game the system. The corporate sector effectively owns the USPTO, not the U.S. public.

And they won't let go. Because it all comes down to money, and they don't care how they make it, as long as they make it.

Ethics - what business all too often lacks.

---
Wayne

http://madhatter.ca/

[ Reply to This | # ]

obviously obvious
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 08:34 PM EST

Seems to me a reasonable defense might be that
since dozens of companies have thought this up maybe it was obvious from the
beginning.

But wait! maybe they all stole it from the famous (????? forgot the companies
name... who is it again who is the patent holder here??? Oh well you know what
I mean.)
stole it from that famous company's fantastic implementation on their web site.



---
just swimming round and round

[ Reply to This | # ]

Allen v. World and Dog - First Amended Complaint
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 08:37 PM EST
Reality Check.

I must admit that I have had to come back to this website
and recheck the facts.

Sitting here in my bedroom in Wales UK, its unbelivable,
some humour I made to my brother about patent wars and out
little battle of m$ vs linux, after I got my Desire Z (any
honeymoon night != vibrator) for xmas..

but did admit to software patent is silly, like patenting a
door knob.

So the mere fact that this case is in court and an actual
things.. Is kinda funny

Its like the $50 Million pound pants

its the
$4 Billion in your pants, or handback or wherever


Its so Daft.. I gonna create a website maybe..
paul-allen-patening-licenseing.com
>> You currently have permission to use this stuff for fre,,
its pre-trial..

When we win, the following features will be disabled..

Test the the pre-trial-win version now

Yo its a dark world..




[ Reply to This | # ]

Get a clue -- comic strip villains are real life
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 08:42 PM EST
Time after time in the comments here, I see surprise that people like Paul Allen
act the way they do. In spite of the commonplace evidence to the contrary, the
surprise persists.

People, you need to get a clue.

Companies really do fire hundreds of people at Christmas time so that executive
bonuses can be increased. Companies really do poison their own environment and
leave bodies behind. Look at the history of the labor movement in the 19th
century, especially coal mining. And, unless you start thinking unions are holy,
find how many corrupt unions went up against corrupt managements. Who are we
supposed to root for?

Look at Batman. Yes, the Joker really does exist. It's not fantasy. So, plan
accordingly. If SCO hasn't taught you anything else, it should teach you that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Allen v. World and Dog - First Amended Complaint
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 09:41 PM EST
He's got more money than he could ever possibly spend, yet
he's still consumed with GREED. He is everything that is
wrong with capitalism.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Allen v. World and Dog - First Amended Complaint
Authored by: Yossarian on Wednesday, December 29 2010 @ 09:53 PM EST
>"In order to help users find additional content that may be
>of interest, the software and hardware that operate these
>websites compare the available content items to determine >whether they
are related"

A question for the legal mind.
In the 1980's supermarkets gave me coupons for "related"
items. E.g. I bought ice cream of brand A and in the check
out I got a coupon for ice cream of brand B. Methinks that the
supermarket computer and its software managed to figure out
that the two were related. Does the "patent" cover that too?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is it possible Allen is doing this as a public service?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2010 @ 12:51 AM EST
Weird thought - maybe he's trying to help set a precedent
for this type of "sue the world over obvious software
patents" suit?

As far as I know, Allen is still rich as Croesus, so it's
not like he couldn't afford the lawyers. And I think even
Microsoft has said they believe software patents have gone
too far.

Paul Z

[ Reply to This | # ]

What does it take to be a patent violation
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2010 @ 02:23 AM EST
Long ago, one thing I heard about patents was that they didn't protect someone
from making a "machine" which was based on a patented machine, only
the sale/distribution of the machine was patented. Given that the mechanism
which determines "like" and "associated items" all takes
place in the server's system, there is no distribution of that software. Now,
what I learned predates all of the business process type of patents, but I
thought most of that was thrown out. I could see if someone sold these companies
their web software that the original company selling that software capability
could have a problem, but not the companies who were sued.

This doesn't help the notification type of infringement claims, but I remember
using an EMACS editor in 1980 which would update a line with the information
"You have new mail" when new mail arrived, or just "You have
mail" if all the mail had been read but not deleted. I didn't read the
claims to see what the precise notification was being claimed, so this may or
may not have been the same.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Allen v. World and Dog - First Amended Complaint - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2010 @ 04:13 AM EST
What's considered prior art? Is it anything that was over a
year before the patent application was issued, or just
before?

If it was just before, then
http://web.archive.org/web/19991013091817/http://amazon.com/
might be prior art (anything earlier than that wouldn't open
for me).

http://web.archive.org/web/19981212020124/http://nytimes.com
/ from December 28, 1998 (earlier ones wouldn't open
either).

http://web.archive.org/web/19980111055327/www.aol.com/webcha
nnels/entertainment.html AOL from January, 1998.

Have a great day:)
Patrick.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What sort of patents are these?
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, December 30 2010 @ 04:59 AM EST
Hey, that's unacceptable! Don't forget 'no swearing, foul language or the use of
*'s to suggest it'.

After the outrage subsided just a little I began to wonder what sort of patents
these were. Most of them say that the ' hardware and software' of the defendants
do stuff that is claimed for part of the patented invention. However, 'hardware
and software' are irrelevant to the meeting of the patent claims. (I can state
this without having read the patents because... well, I just can!)

In Bilski the Supremes pointed out that the machine or transformation test is
not necessarily a conclusive test, but that it may still be helpful. So, are any
of these patents for a machine or for the transformation of something?

Perhaps it's a software machine invention that gets manufactured when the
software is installed in a general purpose computer (Microsoft v. AT&T)? If
one of them is for a machine that uses peripheral vision to bring things to
folks' notice, then it fails as it has no physical components defined in the
patent. (Yes, yes, I know, I admit I haven't read the patents, so sue me.) (On
second thoughts, with the evidence of Paul Allen, you might, so I withdraw the
invitation.) If it has no physical components identified in the patent, then it
fails the test for a machine in that all the components of a patented machine
must be physical (see, shrimp deveiner, Microsoft v. AT&T).

It is not a patentable transformation since nothing is defined in the patents
that gets transformed. (Can you patent the transformation of a stream of
consciousness?)

Perhaps it is a business method or process that is implemented on a computer
(See, Bilski). Is it a process such that, when all the steps are considered as a
whole, it contains a patentable invention (Flook and Diehr)? If so, what is the
whole patentable process and what are the process steps enumerated in the patent
that are being violated? I note that the Supremes don't permit the protection of
one process step. They only permit the protection of process steps in the
context of the whole process. If the Paul Allen inventions are processes, then I
note that he does not accuse the defendants of violating the process steps in
the running of the complete process. The fact that not all of the process is
being carried out means that the individual claims are not protected. Finally,
as far as I can see, none of the patents are for a complete process. They can
only be considered a ragbag of process steps that might be used in a process.

In Bilski, the Supremes found that 'Petitioners seek to patent both the concept
of hedging risk and the application of that concept to energy markets'. Has Paul
Allen sought to patent the sales concept of bringing other related products to a
purchaser's attention and also attempted to patent the narrowing of that concept
to internet sales and search sites? How well do Paul Allen's patents relate to
'Do you want fries, with that' or 'do you want the matching purse'? Why is the
peripheral attraction of attention a sufficiently innovative concept to
transform the sales process into a new patentable process? The Supremes said the
bar on patenting abstract ideas '“cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit
the use of the formula to a particular technological environment” or adding
“insignificant post-solution activity” (Diehr). So, after using the algorithm,
machine, indicator, whatever to warn the observer, where is the significant
post-solution activity? The Flook patent was rejected because the only
post-solution activity was to warn the operator by changing the alarm criteria.
Paul Allen's patents seem to fall far short of the quality of the Flook patent.

My neverknowinglybeingalawyer take on these patents are that they are not
business process or method patents because non of them are a way of doing
business. The patent claims are just process steps that may, or have been,
applied to business, but are just as relevant to the operation of software
programs or nuclear reactors.

They are not process patents because no process is defined by the claims. The
claims are process steps and the shear quantity of them do not transform the
claims into a process.

They are not abstract ideas. They are thoughts without context, applied to
things on the internet as a litigation vehicle. They do not form complete,
coherent ideas (I defer true analysis to the scientists and philosophers).

They are not machines. Whereas, in Microsoft v. AT&T, the infringing machine
was made by installing the software component in a general purpose computer
(spit) there are no software components included as claims in these patents.

They are not methods because no achievable outcome is identified in the patents.
The 'might be used for' descriptive elements in the patents are 'attempting to
limit the use of the [whatever] to a particular technological environment.

See? So much better that 'full of it'.

---
Regards
Ian Al
SCOG: Yes, they hit the ground. The lawyers are now taking them to the centre of
the Earth. The 'centre of the Earth' is irony.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I just realized...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2010 @ 12:56 PM EST
... they managed to patent the old McDonalds line "Would you like fries
with that?"!

There's some really old prior art hanging around for this one! Hell, there's
even a decision tree for deciding what to do if you already ordered fries - I
wonder if it was patented at the time?

[ Reply to This | # ]

AOL as their own prior art
Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, December 30 2010 @ 03:52 PM EST
One additional argument for separating at least AOL from the rest of the defendants is that they are the only one who can claim that they have been doing the allegedly infringing activities since the 1980's.

My non-lawyerly understanding is that a proper investigation of prior art requires carefully looking at the actual claims in the patent, guessing what the court will find that they mean during the claims construction phase, and then matching up elements in the claims with specific elements in whatever you want to show is prior art.

Of course, that should be the standard for specificity in the claims of infringement that Interval filed and I don't see anything like that. AOL's buddy popup indicator infringes on claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 17, and 18 of the 652 patent? Is Interval trying to say that there was never a computer display status indicator before the 652 patent? If there were previous status displays, then what in claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 17, and 18 is new and non-obvious, and most importantly, how does Interval know that AOL implements their buddy pop up indicator using those new and non-obvious methods that are claimed by the patent?

In any case, here is one situation in which you might not have to go through such careful claims construction and analysis to demonstrate prior art. The very products of AOL that Interval alleges infringe seem to be old enough to be prior art for most if not all of the patents. I'm basing this on timelines in AOL press releases on their 10th and 25th birthdays, and on current (as of this typing) wikipedia entries on AOL and their history, plus the filing dates listed at the US PTO site for the four patents.

The oldest of the four patents (652) has a filing date of March 22, 1996. The others are in December 1996 and two dates in 2000.

AOL was founded in 1985. In 1989 it launched the famous "You've got mail" notification and Instant Chat. In June 1995 they released AOL 3.0 on 16-bit Windows platforms. Version 3.0 incorporated the Buddy Network.

If the prior art date for the 652 patent is one year befor filing, i.e., March 22, 1995, the only questions I see are whether the buddy notification features added to AOL 3.0 are the ones that infringe 652, and if the beta testing that must have been done in the months before the official launch to a million members in June 1995 would count as public disclosure (which I think it would).

Every other patent has a prior art date well after June 1995, and every other feature was in AOL software well before 1995.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another rich source of prior art for this case
Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, December 30 2010 @ 04:21 PM EST
These claims really do seem to cover any relatively complex site on the web, the defendants just being a convenient set of sites with deep pockets. How about turning the tables on Interval and applying the same vague allegations of infringement to some other sites?

The oldest of the four patents at issue in this case was filed in March 1996. As I understand it that makes the date for prior art anything older than March 1995.

This Wikipedia article should be a rich source of investigation for prior art: List of websites founded before 1995. It is a short enough list to make it practical to investigate all of them, but has enough that it does look like a promising source.

It also occurs to me that Emacs might all by itself include every claim in all four of the patents, if you include optional features such as rmail. I'm not sure when the first version of the predecessor to ERC (the Emacs IRC client) was written , but if it was later than March 1995 you could throw IRC itself into the mix for prior art of whatever it is that Interval is trying to say is infringed by AOL's buddy popup notification.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior art - biff?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2010 @ 05:26 PM EST
I mean the Unix utility, not the troll.

biff was a utility that would flash something in a corner of your screen when
you received mail. (It was named after the author's dog, who reacted in typical
canine fashion whenever the mailman came.)

Wikipedia says that biff came from 4.0BSD, and that 4.0BSD shipped from 1977 to
1995. It doesn't say what the ship date on biff was.

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • xbiff, 1988 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2010 @ 11:51 PM EST
Possible Prior Art list: (Although I may be a little wrong/Off Topic)
Authored by: Davo.Sydney on Thursday, December 30 2010 @ 08:24 PM EST
From Google Patents search site:
-Patent 6,263,507: July 17th 2001
-Patent 6,034,652: March 7th 2000
-Patent 6,788,314: September 7th 2004
-Patent 6,757,682: June 29th 2004
*Adobe (Macromedia Flash): First introduced/released 1996 (I will investigate
more, to see if any web sites at the time used these claims, and why isn't Adobe
for it's Flash Product a defendant here? Perhaps they have a license or not on
the Lawyers Radar's... Hmmm... (My appologies if they add you Adobe, that is
certainly not my intention here)
* Commodore 64 games (August 82 to the late 80's at least) (and many other game
consoles) used to display the score in the corner, many games even used flashing
numbers, larger numbers to get the players attention that they are getting a
higher score. I even remember typing in Source code from I think it was a ZZAP64
magazine (~1986-1989)
* Glaucoma test where a patient looks solely at a black dot in the middle of a
white screen and other lighter coloured dots appear elsewhere at random,
"SPECIFICALLY" to test a patient/users "Peripheral vision"
(I tried to find when this test was first widely used, I will do a more through
search later, and although this is not in a computer setting, peripheral vision
is used by lions, tigers, leopards, etc. to catch prey...)

Also when was peripheral vision first documented, what else the did the first
discovers/observers say about it? If nothing else, that itself would be
interesting...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Allen v. World and Dog - First Amended Complaint - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 31 2010 @ 01:05 AM EST
i'ts a live!!! hahahaha.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The 682 patent appears to be mischaracterised
Authored by: globularity on Saturday, January 01 2011 @ 08:33 AM EST
I just trudged though the 682 manure and it appears to describe an alert system
which is push based, whereas most of the claims of infringement are for pull
based systems. Not that it would make much difference, most of the claims are
junk anyway in that they describe features used long before the so called
invention. It is funny how they put in some simple exponential decay and summing
mathematics to make it appear somewhat technical yet the patent contains no
description of how the claimed invention works an in it's current form it is
unimplementable due to vagueness.

---
Windows vista, a marriage between operating system and trojan horse.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )