Paul Allen v. The Internet

Former Microsoft executive and billionaire Paul Allen sued several major Internet companies and three large retailers for patent infringement today, asserting that four patents originating at Interval Research, Allen's dot-com era think tank, cover basic web browsing and e-commerce technologies.

The lawsuit [PDF] was filed by Interval Licensing LLC, a patent-holding company owned by Allen, and names eleven companies as defendants: AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTube.

Interval Research was founded in 1992. It closed its doors in 2000, but the lawsuit is necessary to monetize the investment that Allen made in the organization, said David Postman, a spokesman for Allen.

The patents cover "a variety of key processes in e-commerce," said Postman. "Interval Research was early—and right—on key pieces of the Internet," said Postman. "It's important now to protect that investment. We believe these companies are using that technology, in both e-commerce and search."

Allen is one of the world's richest people, with a fortune that Forbes magazine estimates as over $13 billion.

A Wired magazine profile of Interval Research suggests that by 1999, the institute was struggling, with Allen having spent upwards of $100 million on research and not much to show for it. "Interval always had a special buzz and a collection of talent that, even in the annals of technological genius, stands out."

The four patents-in-suit were filed between 1996 and 2000.

They are:

• No. 6,263,507, "Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented By Audiovisual Data."
• No. 6,034,652, "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
• No. 6,788,314, "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
• No. 6,757,682, "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest."

The suit was filed in the Western District of Washington. Interval Licensing is represented by Susman Godfrey, a Texas-based law firm that focuses on contingency-fee patent lawsuits, and Heim, Payne & Chorush is a smaller patent firm based in Houston.

More documents:

• Interval Licensing press release on the lawsuit
• Interval Licensing v. AOL et al. complaint [PDF]
• Coverage from Wall Street Journal

Cross-posted at Corporate Counsel.

 

 

Comments

[Ehud gavron]

The US Patent system needs reform to remove non-practicing entities (NPEs aka "patent trolls") from attempting to profit through FORCED licensing deals, INJUNCTIONS against shipping products for those who actually make products and preventing piece of shit dicks like paul allen from getting this profit.

[H. C. Gilbertson]

Patents in the software industry seem to be bad news! Software has a lifespan of 6 mos, and these bastards like Allen try to bottle it up for 7 years. How about Allen trying some innovation rather than constipation through the patent office.

[P Godin]

A quick review of those patents can leave to assumptions of web browsing display but is not particularly focused on such display definition and description.

IANAL but good common sense will definitively show that those patents are not web browsing patents.

[Alex Chejlyk]

I love this patent: "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest."

So that would cover bold text, a flashing icon, a pop-up, the beep sound, etc!

Software patents are ridiculous.

[Eric Bresie]

Another analysis I read indicated some of this is related to "Recommendations" of some type.

[rich]

Interval Research is an also-ran, a has-been. Paul Allen needs to cut his losses before he alienates half the planet. No man is powerful enough to beat the world. Microsoft, the 800-pound gorilla, found it out the hard way.

[william]

Just a tad bit generic at first glance.

[Art Pryor]

Regarding Patent 6263507 (Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information…)

A very quick search for prior art for 6263507 turns up MSN’s custom start page, which was launched in 1996
(says http://msnblog.msn.com/blogpost.aspx?post=1350394)
Here it is in the internet archive in Oct 1996:
http://web.archive.org/web/19961022175405/http://msn.com/csp/choices/first.asp
And here’s the customized, prior art goodness they were offering:

1 Personal Preferences: Tell us who you are and what you want to see. Select the speed and quality of your graphics. Add some entertaining sound clips to your page.
2 Services: Get all the essential services you need—from stock quotes, financial information, and sports scores to movie times, concert listings, and music reviews.
etc etc

Looks very much like prior art for Patent 6263507, which wasn’t granted until Dec 1996.

[Art Pryor]

Oops I meant, 6263507 wasn't *applied for* until Dec 1996.

[patent litigation]

I suspect that someone like Paul Allen would not have filed this kind of patent infringement suit unless he thought he had a pretty good chance of winning. And, of course, he can afford top-notch legal counsel. My main question is, will Mr. Allen's pledge to give away most of his fortune apply to the (likely pretty hefty) damages if he prevails in this case?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703369704575461964181065980.html?mod=googlenews_wsj