NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Fwd: Paul Allen versus the Internet
----- Forwarded message from Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> ----- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:36:09 -0500 From: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Paul Allen versus the Internet Reply-To: dave@farber.net To: ip <ip@listbox.com> Begin forwarded message: > From: Randall Webmail <rvh40@insightbb.com> > Date: January 12, 2011 12:08:35 AM EST > To: johnmacsgroup@yahoogroups.com, dewayne@warpspeed.com, dave@farber.net > Subject: Paul Allen versus the Internet > > Some clarity on the Paul Allen/Interval Licensing lawsuit > > I had a chance to speak this morning to Alexander Poltorak, chairman, chief executive officer and founder of the oldest patent licensing and enforcement firm in the country, General Patent. He was able to provide some interesting perspectives and clarity on Paul Allen's suit against Google, Apple, and several other big tech players. While I still believe that something is in this for the company that Allen helped found, Mr. Poltorak was adamant that Paul Allen is certainly not a patent troll. > > I asked Mr. Poltorak to help me understand the processes, motivations, and context for Allen's suit against such big companies, as well as his prospects for successful litigation. First and foremost, he explained that the recent filing, dismissal, and refiling of the patent infringement suit is nothing terribly exciting. It's how patent litigation works. One party claims infringement, the defendant denies it, a judge moves it to trial or asks for more information, and the plaintiff refiles as needed. As much as us pundits would love to read into every legal maneuver and apparent setback, the preliminary filings and actions we've seen are nothing more (yet) than posturing and process. The Google News headlines (including mine) are "much ado about nothing" according to Mr. Poltorak. > > Allen's original complaint was cited both by the judge and tech press as exceptionally vague. However, this is more indicative of a "testing the waters" approach, where plaintiffs attempt to avoid revealing too much of their strategy, judges establish their own standards with the litigants, and defendants try to force plaintiffs to reveal as much of their strategy as possible. What Mr. Poltorak didn't note, but I believe is probably more important than posturing in court, is posturing with Wall Street. Even small perceived wins (like a dismissal of Allen's initial suit) on Wall Street help the likes of Google and Apple keep their stock prices stable in the face of potentially serious threats to their business. > > So right now we have what Mr. Poltorak calls fairly uninteresting patent litigation (at least from a legal perspective). Paul Allen and Interval Licensing came up with some powerful ideas in the very early days of the web and, as Ed Bott puts it, "[Allen] wants not just credit, but cash." Poltorak echoes that sentiment, explaining that "it's always about money." > > Next: All about the money? Maybe…but how much? And when? > [SNIP] > > http://www.zdnet.com/blog/google/some-clarity-on-the-paul-alleninterval-licensing-lawsuit/2726#8217;s%20seemingly%20David%20and%20Goliath%20suit%20against%20Google,%20Apple,%20Staples,%20and%20others. > > http://snipurl.com/1tok4i ------------------------------------------- ----- End forwarded message -----