It sounds like SurfCast owns some pretty valuable intellectual property. Good for them!
Of course, I wonder if they've been paying taxes on that property. If not, then Maine Revenue Services might be interested in the fact that a local corporation has been evading their taxes.
On the other hand, if SurfCast is willing to attest to the Maine Revenue Service that their property has no value and should not be taxed, then I'd like to see Microsoft introduce that into court as evidence that SurfCast can't have suffered financial harm.
So which is it: is SurfCast filing a baseless lawsuit over valueless property or are they tax evaders?
An interesting idea, but which Maine tax would apply? I'm not a Maine tax lawyer, but it looks like Maine has plenty of taxes, including a "Blueberry Tax" [1][2], but there doesn't appear to be a general assets tax. Any corporate income from licensing the patent would be taxed just the same as any other income.
Maine's property tax appears to apply only to "real property" (land) and "tangible" personal property [3] ("tangible" property includes tractors, factory equipment, and other things you can pick up and hold --- patents and other IP are "intangible personal property.")
If you think it's a capital asset subject to capital gains taxation, there's usually no tax on that until the gain is realized by sale. I don't know how patents are taxed in states with general ad valorem taxes, but Maine doesn't seem to be one of those states.
There was a piece of DOS software in the late 80's called HyperPad which had tiles and used them to display status and launch applications. I can't find a single screenshot of it though unfortunately.
I'm sure that is probably slightly "more prior" art.
I think we all agree that software patents just gotta go (specially the ones regarding UI). The real question is how to make that happen. Perhaps having a big player like Microsoft targeted by a troll will help.
They have been targeted many times, and paid quite some millions (billions?) over the years [1] [2]. The thing is, the big players like Microsoft all have large patent portfolios and are using them to keep up the oligopoly, they have no interest in abolishing the system.
Microsoft even once gave a demo of how fast QuickBASIC compiled code was by writing a program that split the screen into quarters and showed different real-time data displays into each quarter. You could call that prior art, even if it weren't for Windows 1.
"Under Section 285 of the Patent statute, courts have discretion to award reasonable attorneys’ fees in patent infringement cases that are deemed “exceptional.” 35 U.S.C. § 285. The Federal Circuit noted that while the threat of enhanced damages for willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284 deters bad faith conduct on the part of the accused infringer, the threat of attorneys’ fees under Section 285 is “the only deterrent to the equally improper bringing of clearly unwarranted suits on invalid or unenforceable patents.” Mathis v. Spears, 857 F.2d 749, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Section 285 provides:
The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorneys’
fees to the prevailing party. 35 U.S.C. § 285."
I particularly find the following quote interesting from the last line on the first page: "The present invention is intended to operate in a platform independent manner."
Gee, waiting until Windows 8 releases before filing a lawsuit rather than before hand when the damage to your "company" could have been avoided. I wonder why that is...
Seriously though, even disregarding any previous prior art, Microsoft already did stuff like this back in 98 when it was called Active Channel.
I am glad that a patent troll has directly attacked one of the software giants. Now hopefully Microsoft with its deep pockets and legal team can crush this troll.
It doesn't actually do much good to "crush" this company, right? They started this company around one set of patents. They can start other companies for other patents. The act of incorporating shields them from losing much in the case of having to cover legal costs for the defendant.
I know there has been a spat of these recently, but I always think about Robert Kearns and his lifelong battle against Ford for his intermittent windshield wiper patent.
As much as we hate patent trolls, once and a while, there is an exception to rule which proves us all wrong.
[+] [-] kstrauser|13 years ago|reply
Of course, I wonder if they've been paying taxes on that property. If not, then Maine Revenue Services might be interested in the fact that a local corporation has been evading their taxes.
On the other hand, if SurfCast is willing to attest to the Maine Revenue Service that their property has no value and should not be taxed, then I'd like to see Microsoft introduce that into court as evidence that SurfCast can't have suffered financial harm.
So which is it: is SurfCast filing a baseless lawsuit over valueless property or are they tax evaders?
[+] [-] slapshot|13 years ago|reply
Maine's property tax appears to apply only to "real property" (land) and "tangible" personal property [3] ("tangible" property includes tractors, factory equipment, and other things you can pick up and hold --- patents and other IP are "intangible personal property.")
If you think it's a capital asset subject to capital gains taxation, there's usually no tax on that until the gain is realized by sale. I don't know how patents are taxed in states with general ad valorem taxes, but Maine doesn't seem to be one of those states.
[1] http://www.maine.gov/revenue/othertaxes/homepage.html [2] http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/36/title36ch0... [3] http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/36/title36sec...
[+] [-] politician|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meaty|13 years ago|reply
I'm sure that is probably slightly "more prior" art.
[+] [-] jotux|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] loumf|13 years ago|reply
The word "tile" is used prominently in the patent.
[+] [-] adrianonantua|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrich|13 years ago|reply
[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/10/company-that-won-...
[2] http://www.inquisitr.com/112717/microsoft-loses-i4i-patent-l...
[+] [-] bitwize|13 years ago|reply
Microsoft even once gave a demo of how fast QuickBASIC compiled code was by writing a program that split the screen into quarters and showed different real-time data displays into each quarter. You could call that prior art, even if it weren't for Windows 1.
[+] [-] jakejake|13 years ago|reply
I know they are basically shell corporations, but it would be great to see these patent cases incurring some risk for the trolls.
[+] [-] debacle|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] at-fates-hands|13 years ago|reply
http://www.flhlaw.com/pubs/xprPubDetail.aspx?xpST=PubDetail&...
"Under Section 285 of the Patent statute, courts have discretion to award reasonable attorneys’ fees in patent infringement cases that are deemed “exceptional.” 35 U.S.C. § 285. The Federal Circuit noted that while the threat of enhanced damages for willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284 deters bad faith conduct on the part of the accused infringer, the threat of attorneys’ fees under Section 285 is “the only deterrent to the equally improper bringing of clearly unwarranted suits on invalid or unenforceable patents.” Mathis v. Spears, 857 F.2d 749, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Section 285 provides:
[+] [-] SethMurphy|13 years ago|reply
I particularly find the following quote interesting from the last line on the first page: "The present invention is intended to operate in a platform independent manner."
[+] [-] illuminate|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mdonahoe|13 years ago|reply
See Fig. 1 in the first patent (pg 3) http://www.surfcast.com/images/pdfs/US6724403.pdf
The pictures has some funny Drive names: Bambam, Fatbelly, Bigboss, Hulk.
[+] [-] swang|13 years ago|reply
Seriously though, even disregarding any previous prior art, Microsoft already did stuff like this back in 98 when it was called Active Channel.
[+] [-] tsycho|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anonymfus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] machrider|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbanffy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] indiecore|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] at-fates-hands|13 years ago|reply
As much as we hate patent trolls, once and a while, there is an exception to rule which proves us all wrong.
[+] [-] nitrogen|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thirdtruck|13 years ago|reply
People sometimes win the lottery. Does that provide reason enough to start buying tickets instead of groceries?
[+] [-] hfs|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] TopTrix|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lemiffe|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acluistic|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xo|13 years ago|reply