<i>"IV was originally created as a "patent defense fund," getting investment cash from big Silicon Valley companies like Google, Apple, and Cisco. Soon, IV moved its focus to patent enforcement, and the firm is generally disliked in Silicon Valley."</i><p>"Disliked" is certainly an understatement.<p>It's interesting though, in all of the coverage of Intellectual Ventures nefarious court adventures I've never heard it reported that they started out as a patent defense fund. Is that really true?
Intellectual Ventures is a patent troll. They shouldn't even exist. Laws must ban those organizations that merely collect patents and waiting to sue people. Creativity killing machines!!
Did Symantec try to challenge the '142 patent during this trial? Has this patent ever been challenged?<p>There's so much prior art (procmail, sendmail, cc:Mail, UseNet, routing tables, and probably plenty more) I don't see how this patent could survive a challenge.
> While jurors sided with Intellectual Ventures, they awarded the patent holder less than six percent of the $299 million its lawyers sought, according to a Symantec spokesperson. The verdict form indicates the company was also asking for ongoing royalty payments, which the jury rejected.<p>I'm having trouble reconciling $299 million with these patents, which appear to be gigantically obvious. The second patent, US6073142 A, appears to basically be a description of procmail circa 1990. I challenge anyone to figure out where the $299+ million idea was.
I'm so sick of software patents. The solution seems pretty simple - the approval process for software patents should consist of running the idea past three people off of the street. If they say "Well, duh..." in response to being presented with a complex idea like "Method for Storing Phone Number With a Name" or "Method for Buying Something by Clicking On It" then you don't get your freaking patent.