Patent troll says it owns GPS, sues Foursquare

The patent troll does not claim to "own GPS", nor does it make any kind of sense whatsoever to represent the patent by one drawing in the patent document. The drawings in a patent document exist for technical reasons, and are in no way a reliable representation of what the patent means.<p>What matters are the claims.<p>The first patent, US7475057, looks very very simple: it's a single standalone claim regarding:<p>* using a GPS receiver<p>* to populate a database<p>* by reading the GPS from a personal computing device<p>* when the device comes to a stable location<p>* sending that location to the server<p>* reading data about the location back from the server<p>* having the personal computing device request that the server save that information in a record associated with a user<p>* by using a system of detecting that the device has become stationary involving (i) reading the GPS, (ii) waiting, (iii) rereading the GPS, (iv) seeing if the location changed substantially.<p>This is a single claim; you'd have to be doing <i>all</i> of these things to infringe that patent.<p>(It's a remarkably broad claim and a dumb patent, although it was filed a fair bit before personal GPS devices were common).

These seem to be becoming more and more <i>timing</i> attacks. For any given concept in software, it seems there are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of overlapping patents on various applications of the idea. It might be a login authentication, a gps location or an in-app purchase. The point is, it doesn't matter. The actual patent is irrelevant. Trolls have something that's going to work, they just need to wait for that golden moment when a company just starts becoming successful. Big enough to pay out, but too small to defend well enough not to be easy money.<p>Perhaps we need a law firm that specializes in cheaply delaying troll cases long enough for little companies to build some defenses. Perhaps trolls are more like a manageable chronic disease rather than something that needs an immediate cure.

I wonder if recent cries for the government to reform patent law is pressuring patent trolls to hurry up and try to cash out on increasingly obvious claims. All shell companies have to start doing it, because their 'colleagues' are ruining the patent troll market with their own ridiculous claims and essentially running each other into the ground.

WHY have we not reformed our patent system yet? Is it purely because of the sway lawyers have over our legal system and regulatory system (and the inherent conflict of interest that results)?

At least in France we have a law stating that if a third-party patent owner fails to do something with the patent, the initial patent holder takes all his right on the patent back. No wonder why many lobby want to get rid of this to "have homogeneous laws in Europe"...

Not really a well thought out suggestion, but wouldn't we get a lot less of these lawsuits when there were a stronger defense mechanism in case the alleged patent owner looses? It seems that changing the patent system is a long shot project, but making it unattractive to sue could maybe become a quick-fix easier to implement. These kinds of digging-in-the-dark lawsuits are seemingly a by-product for many startups as soon as they get somewhat their feet on the ground.

Cause Foursquare are the only ones using the features in question. NO way that any larger companies will side with Foursquare to squash this before it gets traction.<p>I hope.

I haven't fully reviewed the patents in question, but the oldest looks to have a filing date of sometime in late 2000. I would think that there has to be some prior art out there for many of the claims of this patent. For example, the sport of geocaching was founded in May 2000, and people pretty quickly started writing software applications to assist in finding caches.

Interesting, my company I work at is based entirely on GPS... Wonder if this could affect us.

should call up drew curtis <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/drew_curtis_how_i_beat_a_patent_troll.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ted.com/talks/drew_curtis_how_i_beat_a_patent_tro...</a>

Intellectual Ventures shell company again?

As well as reforming the rules under which a patent is granted, we should also double the pay of patent examiners, then make them professionally part-liable for court costs arising from the granting of illegitimate monopolies in the form of invalid patents.

I think the federal government would disagree with assertions of private ownership of the GPS system....<p>Which is why the patent at issue does not claim ownership of GPS. It claims ownership of a different method of location detection, somewhat similar to the non-GPS system that Google and Apple use.<p>This article has been flagged for being incorrect and linkbaity. Who would have thought that the quality of GigaOm would actually fall below that of PandoDaily?

I do not appreciate editorializing in titles. Don't slur some organization as a "troll", tell me what, exactly, they are doing that might be objectionable.