Thursday, January 18, 2018
Home Tags Patent

Tag: Patent

A collection of foam-tipped weapons used for LARPing.Two rivals in the unusual business of selling foam arrows have failed to settle their dispute over patents and trademarks, and the lawsuit between them is moving forward rapidly. Defendant Jordan Gwyther has said that the litigation could threaten the future of his favorite hobby: live action role-playing, or "LARPing." Gwyther and his fellow LARPers recreate medieval battles, wearing armor and using foam weapons to stage fights in local fields and parks. Gwyther runs a community website for LARPers called and has a side business selling foam-tipped arrows that are popular with LARPers. He got sued in October by a company called Global Archery, which claims that Gwyther's arrows business violates two patents it owns and also illegally uses its trademark. Last month, Gwyther, strapped for cash, went public with the dispute. He made a video asking for support on GoFundMe. That led Global Archery to ask the judge for a "gag order" that would prevent Gwyther from talking about the case.

At that point, the Electronic Frontier Foundation stepped in, filing an amicus brief stating the group's position that Gwyther has a First Amendment right to talk about the litigation, as well as to ask for help. Now the litigation is moving forward at a rapid clip, despite the fact that Global Archery's founder, John Jackson, made a settlement offer in which Gwyther wouldn't have to pay him anything.

Ars spoke to both Jackson and Gwyther about their views on that offer, and the escalating legal brawl between them. “Targeting our customers” In an interview with Ars, Jackson said he decided to sue Gwyther because he started hearing about Gwyther from his own customers. "We started getting contacted by our licensees," Jackson said. "They were saying, 'Who's He's contacting us and trying to sell us arrows.' Well, that didn't set too well with us," Jackson said. Jackson doesn't believe that Gwyther should be allowed to speak to his customers and tell them he has a better product. "When you’re a commercial enterprise, and you say our product is better than yours, that is false and misleading," said Jackson. "You can’t do that in commercial advertising. That would be like me selling tennis shoes by saying they're better than Nike." When I asked Jackson how that wasn't simply legitimate business competition, he said that claiming one's product is better than a competitor's, "without proof," is false advertising. "If he’s in the Larp community, why does he need to go after my customers?" asked Jackson. "These are people who have already got a business relationship with us." He also thinks Gwyther shouldn't be allowed to buy Google ads based on his company's name.

The practice of buying trademarked keywords in search engines has been litigated for more than a decade now, and trademark owners who take Jackson's position—that purchasing ads based on competitors' names is "infringement"—nearly always lose, a pattern documented exhaustively by Santa Clara Law Prof.

Eric Goldman.
Still, Jackson believes it shouldn't be allowed. "He's targeting our customers, and targeting our brand," said Jackson. "He's using [our name] as keywords for his advertising.

That's not right. "We’re not some money hungry corporation. This is not who we are. We've taken combat archery, made it family friendly, and something the whole family can enjoy." Licenses vs. sales Jackson made Gwyther an offer he viewed as a generous one: he'd drop the lawsuit and not ask for any money damages, if Gwyther followed 10 conditions.

Gwyther would be allowed to continue to sell his arrows, which he imports from a German company, but would need to stop "target[ing] any of Global's licensees through direct marketing including e-mails and cold calls." He would also have to take down his YouTube video and stop talking to the press or making any public statements about the dispute. In other words: stop competing with us and stop talking about it.

For Gwyther, the settlement is no generous offer at all. He rejected the offer. "There are stipulations in there I don't believe any court would grant him, like that I would not 'directly target' any licensees," he told Ars in an interview. "What if I get a referral and it's one of their licensees, and I e-mail them? Would I have to look it up every time? It makes it impossible to do anything." Referrals are the basis of Gwyther's business, and there aren't that many groups using foam-tipped arrows, he said.

They tend to know each other. He doesn't like the conditions that would keep him silent about the situation, either. "It feels like an attempt to get a gag order without a gag order," he said. "This lawsuit has turned my life upside down.
I've been inundated with worries. How am I going to pay for this?" Jackson says he's amazed Gwyther won't accept his ten conditions, which are now listed on Gwyther's GoFundMe page.
In a written statement, Jackson said: To our shock and disbelief, Mr.

Gwyther rejected our offer, stating that our offer is too restrictive because he believes that he should be able to continue to use our federally registered trademark Archery Tag®, and to be allowed to continue to directly market to Global Archery’s Licensed Archery Tag® providers. One has to wonder about Mr.

Gwyther’s true intentions. At its root, the conflict is between two different personalities and also widely different business models.

Global Archery licenses its business to summer camps, church groups, and companies.
In exchange for an annual fee, the company provides not just arrows but bows, targets, and other equipment.

The company also replaces worn-out gear. The fees can range from a few thousand dollars up to $10,000, depending on how much equipment is desired, according to Jackson.
If a company stops paying the franchise fee, they have to give back their equipment. Gwyther's business is simpler, and cheaper. He just sells the arrows.

They cost between $15 and $17 each, and a typical order is between 60 and 90 arrows.
Photo illustration by Aurich LawsonApple v.
Samsung Apple’s $120M jury verdict against Samsung destroyed on appeal After five years of conflict with Apple, some Samsung phone features are banned Samsung to finally pay Apple $548M as part of endless patent case Appeals court grants injunction to Apple, bans some features from Samsung phones Apple v.
Samsung is headed toward an incredible fourth jury trial View all…The Samsung v.

Apple saga is headed toward a fourth jury trial that's slated to begin in San Jose federal court at the end of this month. Lawyers for both companies have been filing a rapid succession of briefs, seeking to hammer out the final details of a trial that will recalculate damages for some Samsung phones found to infringe Apple patents. US District Judge Lucy Koh has now weighed in on the parties' requests, publishing an order (PDF) on Wednesday barring Samsung's most surprising request.

The company had asked (PDF) for Apple to be barred from mentioning that Samsung is a Korean corporation. "Throughout both of the prior trials in this case, Apple has taken every opportunity to remind the jury of Samsung’s 'foreignness' by consistently referring to SEC as 'Samsung Korea,' 'Korean Samsung,' the 'Korean parent,' 'the Korean company,' and the 'Korean bosses' of 'Samsung America,'" Samsung lawyers wrote. "In fact, Apple’s counsel has rarely referred to SEC without mentioning Korea." They pointed out Koh herself had cited research about jury bias against foreign patent litigants. "Apple has no legitimate basis to offer any evidence or argument that evokes racial or national origin prejudice." Samsung lawyers also asked for Apple to be barred from referencing "the nationality or country of employment of Samsung witnesses." On Wednesday, Koh denied Samsung's request, calling it overly broad. "Apple's references to 'Samsung Korea' were permissibly 'made to explain Samsung’s corporate structure and the interplay between various executives,'" Koh wrote, quoting her own earlier ruling. "The Court held that, in context, these questions and comments did not evoke racial or national origin prejudice." "[T]he Court is mindful that a portion of Apple’s closing argument at the 2013 damages retrial 'included a troubling theme which could have been perceived as invoking racial or ethnic prejudice,'" she added.

Apple was admonished for that behavior, and "the Court has no reason to believe that Apple will make similar comments going forward." A retrial over damages is scheduled to begin on March 28, and Koh's decision on the Korea references was part of a larger order about various pre-trial issues.

The retrial follows a May 2015 decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a ruling that wiped out Apple's damages related to trade dress.
In the upcoming trial, a jury will have to make an award based solely on Apple's infringed patents. Those patents include three design patents, the '381 "bounce back" patent, the '163 "tap to zoom" patent, and the '915 "pinch to zoom" patent. The whole shebang relates to the blockbuster 2012 trial in which Apple won a verdict of $1.05 billion before seeing that number slashed down in post-trial motions and appeals.
Samsung has paid $548 million to Apple in relation to that case so far. A second victory against Samsung came Apple's way during a 2014 jury trial over newer phones in which Apple was awarded $120 million. Last week that win was wiped out entirely when the appeals court invalidated the patents Apple used, including the "slide to unlock" patent.
Uncle Sam can't argue against science Analysis Apple versus the FBI has generated much discussion and conjecture lately. The vast majority of it has centered on the rights and the wrongs, about the loss of privacy, and of the precedent that breaking one iPhone would create. Many are hanging on the blow-by-blow developments for an outcome, to see which side trumps: Apple – and by implication, increasingly, the tech industry – or law enforcement and the government.

But this misses the point and the ultimate outcome: victory for Apple. That's because there is a higher law beyond what FBI director James Comey sought to enforce on Apple last month. It was described by Harvard professor Larry Lessig almost 20 years ago, when he was then unknown, in a book called Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, since updated as Code v2. Lessig called law as defined in computer code "West Coast Law." This is as opposed to "East Coast Law," which is defined by statute. Encryption is one such West Coast Law.
It was defined by Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman 40 years ago in a paper called "New Directions in Cryptography." Their Diffie-Hellman protocol brought us the concept of public key cryptography, messages encrypted first with a key everyone knows, then decrypted with a private key controlled by the recipient. Or vice versa. East Coast Law is analog.
It changes and it has exceptions.

Arguments can be made – on either side of a question – that define or change East Coast Law or that shift its interpretation, as happens in courts. West Coast Law, like encryption, is binary.
It's science.
It uses facts that can't be denied or altered through the relative strength or weakness of an argument.
So we have learned from that day to this. As the Diffie-Hellman paper was published, Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Len Adleman created an implementation known by their initials: RSA.

They defied the wishes of the US National Security Agency and published an article on it in Scientific American in 1977. In 1991, programmer Phil Zimmermann wrote a program called Pretty Good Privacy, implementing RSA. Zimmermann launched PGP Inc in 1996, defying attempts by RSA Security (now part of EMC) to claim patent rights over the two-key method, then fighting the US government over rights to export it. The first version of the encrypted Web standard, https, also using Diffie-Hellman keys, was written into Netscape Navigator in 1994.
It evolved into a full Internet specification in 2000.

After encrypting its own traffic, Google began preferring the encrypted pages of web sites it indexed late last year. Why did Google do this? Partly in response to the revelations of Edward Snowden, whose document dump in 2013 showed that the NSA has been ignoring privacy routinely ever since 9/11.
Snowden's point was that the government's promises on this issue can't be trusted. Snowden says we can't trust government with our secrets, and we don't have to. You might as well pass a law telling glaciers not to melt. We all want our privacy and security. West Coast Law says the only way you get it is if everyone does. But, Comey says, he just wants Apple to disable PIN protection on one iPhone.

But this, too, is an encryption case.

The PIN serves as a shorter key.

This phone will self-destruct after 10 failures, just like the messages in Mission Impossible. If Apple unlocks the phone because of terrorism, the district attorney for New York County (Manhattan) alone has 175 Apple devices in his lab he wants to open, in hopes of solving crimes. And it's not just America.
If Apple broke its own phone's security because of US legal demands, China would demand that right.
So would Russia.
So would every other dictatorship. Many "crimes" being investigated in these countries are political.
If Comey gets his way, then so does Vladimir Putin. This is why Bruce Schneier, a security expert who became an IBM employee last week when his employer was bought by Big Blue, writes that "Our national security needs strong encryption." He adds: I wish I could give the good guys the access they want without also giving the bad guys access, but I can't.
If the FBI gets its way and forces companies to weaken encryption, all of us – our data, our networks, our infrastructure, our society – will be at risk. That's West Coast Law in a nutshell.
It's science.
It's binary. Resistance to it is futile. The decision by Judge James Orenstein to deny a government demand against Apple, based on the arguments used in San Bernardino, is thus theater.
So, too, with the House hearing.

Congress could pass a law, and the President could sign a law, mandating that all security have a back door, just as was sought in 1991. But even if Tim Cook was not allowed to defy such a demand, as he says he will in the case of the PIN, replacing it with something "even Apple" can't crack, unbreakable security is possible. Which means unbreakable security will exist. Will only criminals and governments have it? Or will you? Will everyone? It's all or nothing.

That's the ruling of West Coast Law. And what of Whitfield and Diffie, who launched this ship 40 years ago? They were just awarded the Turing Prize, computing's equivalent of the Nobel. Law can't defy science. ® Sponsored: Speed up incident response with actionable forensic analytics
Kirby FergusonIn 2014, no company filed more patent lawsuits than eDekka LLC, a Texas-based company with just one asset—US Patent No. 6,266,674.

Fully 168 patent lawsuits came to a sudden halt in October, when US District Judge Rodney Gilstrap stopped the litigation campaign in its tracks. eDekka's patent, which had been used to sue a wide array of online retailers, described nothing more than "the abstract idea of storing and labeling information," Gilstrap found.

Those were "routine tasks that could be performed by a human" and didn't meet the standard for getting a patent.

Gilstrap ruled the patent invalid. Lawyers for eDekka appealed Gilstrap's decision, and the shell company's appeal brief was initially due in December.
It asked for and received an extension until February 26.
Instead of filing a brief blasting the lower-court results, though, eDekka's lawyers simply filed a short document asking to withdraw its appeal. Yesterday, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted the motion. eDekka's story isn't over quite yet, and the ending isn't going to be a happy one for this patent troll.

After Gilstrap invalidated the company's patent, he ordered it to pay attorneys' fees—the first time the judge had ruled a case as "exceptional" under new guidelines in effect as a result of the Supreme Court's 2014 Octane Fitness case. Many of the remaining eDekka defendants, selling everything from shoes to stationery to coffee, filed a fee request (PDF) on December 31.
In January, Gilstrap ordered (PDF) eDekka to pay a total of more than $390,000 in attorneys' fees to 24 defendant companies. The order gave most of the defendants exactly the fees they requested, generally between $13,000 and $16,000 each. (Most of the defendants have banded together in a joint defense group, represented by lawyers from Fish & Richardson.) There's no indication in the court docket that the fees matter has been settled. eDekka is represented by Austin Hansley, a lawyer whose small Texas law firm also represented the second- and third-most litigious patent trolls of 2014. Hansley did not respond to a request for comment on this story. In 2014, Hansley filed more than 100 lawsuits on eDekka's behalf—including 87 in a single week—all in East Texas. He sued a vast array of companies doing business online, with the better-known defendants including Fab, Harry & David, Dress Barn, the National Football League, Etsy, and Estee Lauder. eDekka's lawsuits said that various types of online "shopping cart" technology infringed its information-storage patent. The eDekka patent was originally filed for by Donald Hejna, a Bay Area entrepreneur and inventor whose company, Enounce, previously sued Apple for infringing a patent related to variable-speed video playback.

Enounce claimed it was the first to create technology allowing users to "speed up or slow down the playback rate" of Adobe Flash videos without sound problems.
An IBM software engineer sketches out a pending patent.
IBM has acquired more US patents than any other company for 23 years in a row. (Jared Lazarus/Feature Photo Service for IBM)IBM IBM is pushing big Internet companies to pay patent licensing fees in part because IBM invented the Prodigy service, a precursor to the modern Web. Yesterday, Big Blue filed a lawsuit (PDF) against Groupon, saying the company has infringed four IBM patents, including patents 5,796,967 and 7,072,849.

Each of those relates to the Prodigy service. IBM inventors working on Prodigy "developed novel methods for presenting applications and advertisements," and "the technological innovations embodied in these patents are fundamental to the efficient communication of Internet content," according to the company. The Prodigy patents were filed in 1993 and 1996, but they have "priority dates" stretching back to 1988.

That's because they're based on "divisional" and "continuation" patent applications, which were abandoned but first filed in that year. The '567 patent describes a system that presents "interactive applications (such as home, local, goods, etc.) on a computer network," using a monitor, a "first partition" (a webpage), and a "second partition" with command functions (like a menu bar). The wording of the complaint, filed in federal court in Delaware, is extremely similar to a lawsuit that IBM filed last year against Priceline, Kayak, and OpenTable. That ongoing litigation involves the same four patents. "[D]espite IBM's repeated attempts to negotiate, Groupon refuses to take a license but continues to use IBM's property," IBM lawyers write. As to the other allegations, US Patent No. 5,961,601 describes preserving "state" information between a client and server. US Patent No. 7,631,346, filed in 2005, is the most recent patent.
It describes advances in "single-sign-on technology," which allows users to connect to online services "by requiring only one authorization operation during a particular user session." The infringement accusations for the '346 "single-sign-on" patent say that Groupon infringes because it has an option to sign in using Facebook.

That's an extremely common sign-in option for apps today, suggesting that IBM believes a vast swath of mobile apps infringe its patents. IBM says it informed Groupon that it was infringing the '967, '849, and '346 patents as early as 2011.

As for the '601 patent, IBM says that Groupon should have been on notice of that once Priceline got sued last year. "Over the past three years, IBM has attempted to conclude a fair and reasonable patent license agreement with Groupon," an IBM spokesperson told Ars via email. "Our intent is to reach a fair conclusion under which Groupon acknowledges its obligation and compensates IBM for the use of IBM's patented technology." Groupon didn't respond to a request for comment about the lawsuit. This isn't the first time IBM has sought patent licensing fees from an Internet giant. In 2013, Big Blue sent a patent demand letter to Twitter on the verge of Twitter's IPO.

Twitter paid $36 million to IBM to resolve that dispute, which included an outright purchase of 900 IBM patents. Back in 2006, IBM sued Amazon in the patent hotspot of the Eastern District of Texas over business method patents the company said were foundational to online commerce.

The case settled the following year. IBM aggressively patents the technologies it creates, and for the last 23 years the company has acquired more US patents each year than any other company. Last year, IBM acquired 7,355 US patents.
USPTO via EFF"Personalized content" is a phrase so vague that it could mean just about anything.

That quality makes it just about perfect for use by a patent troll.

This month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation's patent lawyers have honed in on a patent describing a way of "presenting personalized content relating to offered products and services," owned by Phoenix Licensing LLC, a patent-holding company controlled by Richard Libman, an Arizona man who's sued more that 100 companies. The main claim of US Patent No. 8,738,435 is little more than a description of sending a "communication" with "identifying content" to a "plurality of persons." The patent essentially describes any type of personalized marketing, as long as it involves a "computer-accessible storage medium." In other words—personalized marketing, but on a computer. But in lawsuits filed on behalf of Libman's companies, like one against SF-based Credo Mobile, his lawyers say the patents "go beyond simply describing a way to computerize a manual process." They also "describe a process of choosing product characteristics, or customizing products, for a specific individual... using decision criteria, then creating customized offer communications from same, all in a mass-produced way." Earlier mass-mailing systems "produced output that was either non-customized or just customized to address a given person" and could not select products and "characteristics appropriate for a given person," Libman's lawyers write. Wordy language notwithstanding, the patents look like the type of "do it on a computer" claims that should get tossed out as "almost surely invalid" under the Alice v.

CLS Bank Supreme Court precedent, EFF lawyer Daniel Nazer explains in his blog post. "Unsurprisingly, given that its patents are so vulnerable to challenge under the Alice standard, it has filed all of these lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas." That plaintiff-friendly court is less likely to invalidate patents under Alice. But the newest Phoenix Licensing lawsuits are all based in East Texas, despite the fact that inventor Richard Libman is based in Arizona, and his targets are all over.
In the lawsuit against Credo Mobile, the complaint shows how Libman and his lawyers believe that essentially any type of personalized marketing offer infringes their patents. Enlarge Phoenix Licensing v.

Credo Mobile complaint Libman's attorneys hail from Russ August and Kabat, a Los Angeles firm that also represented TQP Development, one of the most successful patent trolls, in its trial against Newegg.

The same team of lawyers now representing Libman won a $2.3 million jury verdict for TQP, but the TQP patent was invalidated in post-trial action. Libman continues to get "continuation" patents, essentially variations on his original 1996 application that change the wording around, but preserve his 1996 "priority date" for lawsuits. "But this is not evidence of inventiveness," argues Nazer. "Rather, it simply shows that the Patent Office is asleep at the wheel." Like many lawsuits filed by patent-holding companies, the Phoenix Licensing complaint spends some time venerating the named inventor, who, once upon a time, had a business other than patent lawsuits. "[T]he public has benefitted from Mr. Libman's disclosures," Libman's lawyers state.

Before Libman invented personalized marketing, they claim telemarketers and agents "worked within a limited universe of defined products and services, and worse, with limited information about them and their customers." News articles from 1997 and a press release from 2001 are quoted in the complaint, discussing Libman's company ICA Insurance Marketing.

As president of ICA, Libman worked with banks to send offers of insurance based on demographic information in their accounts. Ars called Libman to ask about his inventions, but he refused to discuss them. "I can't do that," he answered. "I'm in litigation, as you know." Asked why he sued more than 100 companies seeking licensing fees, Libman said, "I'm not going to even comment on that." The only thing Libman would say about his career of patent lawsuits is that he had read the EFF blog post, and he didn't think much of it. "It's written by somebody who didn't bother taking a look at the history of the patents," said Libman. "I'm not a troll.
I'm the inventor on all my patents.

This is just one of a myriad of articles, on a myriad of different inventors, calling them names and trying to support the anti-patent movement that seems prevalent these days."
Ready to feel like you’re in the future? If a new patent from Sony comes to fruition, you might be able to strap on your VR goggles and manipulate virtual space while looking like you’re living in The Grid from ‘Tron.’ The patent, spotted by Ars Technica, is for a ‘Glove Interface Object’ presumably designed to work with the PlayStation VR (or perhaps a future successor).
It appears to be a glove and bracelet with a sphere that looks not unlike what is perched atop the PlayStation Move controller, and it is designed to render finger and hand movements from within virtual space. Run an awesome startup? Get your company on stage at TNW Europe.

Apply for our startup program now! Apply free The device is designed to have both flex and contact sensors to not only track the position of the thumb and at least one finger, but also recognize when they interact with each other. When rendered in virtual space, this means that players could put their fingers in a ‘gun’ position to fire a gun, or touch the thumb and pointer finger together to pick something up. The application also says that haptics could be integrated into the device to provide feedback to the user. As with many patents, it’s unclear when (or if) a controller like this will see the light of day.

But it does show how people who are working with VR are thinking critically about the kinds of gameplay the medium invites.
It’s very clear that Sony and its competitors are chasing after ways to immerse users in virtual worlds, whisking them away to a new place and making them feel like they’re actually there. This space is getting really interesting. ➤ USPTO [via Ars Technica]
Graphiq staff photo.Graphiq Lumen View Technology sued several small businesses in 2013 over a patent that described little more than online "matchmaking" before its demands for quick $50,000 payoffs ran into a Santa Barbara startup called Graphiq (formerly FindTheBest). Graphiq CEO Kevin O'Connor, who had also co-founded online ad giant Doubleclick, pledged to spend his own money to defeat Lumen View—and defeat them he did. O'Connor's battle with the patent-holding company has finally come to an end, with the still-unknown owners of Lumen View agreeing to pay him $100,000. "We took their patent, and we got sanctions against their lawyer," said O'Connor in an interview with Ars. "We probably spent $350,000 to get $100,000. It was worth every cent.
It definitely wasn’t the best investment, but goddamn, I feel good.
I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for those bastards." Lumen View originally sued Graphiq in mid-2013. Finally faced with a determined and well-financed opponent, Lumen View was in for a serious courtroom pounding.

After reading early motions, US District Judge Denise Cote obliterated Lumen's patent on "multilateral decision-making." "Matchmakers have been doing this for millennia," wrote Cote. "Having two or more parties input preference data is not inventive." Lumen filed papers to appeal its loss but gave up before it even saw an appeal hearing.

Graphiq also pushed ahead with a RICO lawsuit, saying that the patent troll's activity amounted to extortion. The longshot RICO tactic didn't succeed, but Graphiq became the first patent defendant to win an award of attorneys' fees under a new law that came into effect with the Supreme Court's Octane Fitness decision. Last month, the $300,000 fee award was upheld on appeal, although the amount was cut in half. Principals still unknown The settlement resolves both the RICO case, which was up on appeal, as well as the patent infringement fee motion, which had been kicked back to the district court. Graphiq's experience fighting Lumen View has a broader relevance for a few reasons.

First, it's rare to see a final resolution of a patent-troll fight where the results are public at all. Second, the case will be a powerful example for pro-patent-reform activists, because it demonstrates how the economics of patent litigation will continue to strongly favor patent trolls without legislative change. Graphiq won its fight about as thoroughly and as quickly as possible—and forced the other side to pay up.
Its total victory took advantage of both the Octane Fitness and Alice Corp. decisions, two Supreme Court decisions that tilted the playing field in favor of defendants. Yet even with those advantages, it still cost around a quarter-million dollars to win. Finally, the win shows the incredible lack of transparency in the murky world of patents. Even while Graphiq was paid $100,000, no one knows who paid the money. "I would have loved to penetrate the corporate shell, and take huge amounts of money, and win triple fees on the RICO case," said O'Connor. "I would love to have exposed them, but I’ve got lots of other stuff to do in life." O'Connor says lawyers he spoke to told him it could cost as much as a half million dollars to pierce the corporate shell protecting the identities of whoever owns Lumen View Technology LLC, and there was no guarantee the effort would succeed. In a brief interview with Ars, Lumen View lawyer Stam Stamoulis said none of the signatories on the settlement papers, including named inventors Eileen Shapiro and Steven Mintz, own or control Lumen View Technology. He wouldn't say who his client is. "They told me they don't want to have any comment in regard to that," he said. Damian Wasserbauer, the lawyer who prosecuted Lumen View's original patent cases, also wouldn't say who owned Lumen View. "You should report the fact that Kevin O'Connor went out of his way to create a great wrong against Eileen Shapiro, the inventor," Wasserbauer said when reached by telephone yesterday. "She had nothing to do with this. You have to report this correctly, so do your job." Wasserbauer then disconnected. In the end, Lumen View's owners will remain a mystery, even though they were able to extract payments from more than a dozen small businesses before being challenged by O'Connor and Graphiq. It isn't clear how Wasserbauer's statement that "Shapiro had nothing to do with this" squares with earlier statements and documents from the case.
It was Shapiro and Mintz who sold their patent to Lumen View in the first place, and that transfer (though not the price) is recorded in patent office records. Wasserbauer himself complained in court papers that O'Connor had talked about "confidential information that should not have been revealed," including Shapiro having an ownership stake in Lumen View.

That was part of his request for a "gag order" from the court, seeking to stop O'Connor from talking about the case. The motion seeking a gag order was roundly rejected by the judge.
Press Release MWC Barcelona, February 22 2016.

Anam Technologies are delighted to announce that, further to competitive tender, it has been selected by Telenor to deliver a groupwide A2P SMS initiative to improve service quality and revenues by fully securing the SMS infrastructure.

This will be achieved through a combination of Anam’s patented SMS Firewall technology and comprehensive security analysis services.
It is the first such global approach to ensuring A2P revenue and service quality by a global operator and will allow Telenor to offer a single point of A2P access for Telenor’s 200M subscribers eliminating the ‘grey-market’ and reducing Spam SMS. The global A2P SMS market is forecast to grow beyond $70bn by 2020 and it is estimated that 66% of A2P traffic reaches subscribers via Grey Routes and goes unbilled by MNO’s. Brian D'Arcy, Anam CCO The advancement of wholesale A2P SMS as a professional and reliable service is central to the Anam/Telenor partnership because the channel has been suffering from low quality and grey routing into MNO’s across the world for a long time.

This will be achieved via a combination of locally deployed and a central SMS-Firewall to eliminate grey-route SMS traffic and to offer aggregators and customers high quality A2P termination to all Telenor’s networks. “Anam FW Solution is helping Telenor improve customer satisfaction, secure its revenues on already existing traffic and monetize the messaging traffic.

A2P Traffic is constantly growing, but it is also a big problem that there are many grey routes which the traffic can be delivered if the network is unprotected.

By securing the network, Telenor and its subscribers, aggregators and OTT players will benefit from delivery of high quality traffic in a grey free zone.

This is a proof that SMS is not dead, and service providers are willing to pay for a reliable service. Our partnership has proven to be a big success and we are looking forward to implement Anam’s solution in all 13 Telenor Business Units”.

Tor Ølve Andreassen, Head of Messaging Solutions, Telenor’s Wholesale unit. Commenting on the announcement, Anam’s Chief Commercial Officer Brian D’Arcy said: “Telenor is a long standing and highly valued customer of Anam.

They are innovative and market leading in so many respects and in this case driven by a strategic vision to create a high quality and monetized A2P environment for all of their mobile operator markets. We are proud to be chosen as their partner on this journey”. About AnamAnam is the fastest growing independent SMS Firewall and A2P Monetisation service provider in the world, filtering billions of messages for Mobile Operators in over 60 countries.

Anam’s team of Industry leading A2P consultants leverage firewall technology to enable Mobile Operators to generate new revenues from A2P SMS traffic on their networks whilst also eliminating SMS SPAM.

The company’s offering has generated incremental revenues in excess of $2million per annum for every 1 million subscribers.

Anam owns the worldwide patent for Home Routing (EP 1683375 B1), a technique invented by John Murtagh, Anam CTO in 2006 and fundamental to SMS Firewalls. Anam’s corporate and technical headquarters are in Dublin, its Asia hub in Kuala Lumpur and further worldwide presence in London, Hong Kong and Hanoi. ContactAnam: Mary Therese Fitzpatrick, Director of Marketing; Anam Technologies Limited;email:; Mobile: +353.87.2497543 Telenor: Kjetil Hanshus, Vice President, IPX & Interconnect Solutions. email:
Another patent war that isn't paying off, for anyone.
Three justices own individual stocks, and that's created more conflicts recently.
While a majority of IT professionals believe the secure sharing and transferring of files is very important, more than half are using unsecure cloud-file sharing servicesLONDON, UK. – February 4, 2016 – Given the increase in threats and vulnerabilities introduced to the market on a daily basis, the process of moving company data securely is critical to the role of IT teams. Today, Ipswitch announced the findings of their new survey that evaluated the current file transfer solutions and policies in place for 555 IT professionals across the globe. The survey found that while IT teams believe secure file transfers are very important to their organisations, they lack the necessary tools to do so. Key findings included - infographics:While 76 percent of IT professionals said that being able to securely transfer and share files internally and externally is very important, 61 percent said that unsecure cloud-file sharing services like Dropbox are being used within their organisations.32 percent of IT professionals said that they do not have a file transfer policy in place, but 25 percent plan to integrate one. A quarter (25 percent) of IT professionals said that their organisations have file transfer technology policies in place but indicated that enforcement is inconsistent. 21 percent of IT professionals said they may have experienced a data breach or suffered data loss but are not sure. More than a third (38 percent) of IT professionals said their processes to identify and mitigate file transfer risk are not efficient. Less than half (46 percent) of IT professional respondents said that they have a Managed File Transfer (MFT) solution in place.“The survey findings point to an obvious disconnect between IT and organisation leadership when it comes to file transfer security,” said Michael Hack, Senior Vice President of European Operations at Ipswitch. “IT teams need to voice this as a priority for 2016 to ensure the company has granular access control, automated policy governance, and protection of data in transit and at rest. By implementing a MFT solution and enforcing strict policies, IT teams can make sure sensitive company data is safe and secure, without hassle.” ResourcesIpswitch will be exploring the topic of file transfer security more in-depth during the following three webinars:Protect Your Patent Data and Meet HIPAA Compliance Demands – available on-demandImplementing Compliance Controls for Data Privacy in Regulated Industries – February 17, 2016Protecting data-in-motion – what to consider when implementing IT controls to comply with GDPR – February 24, 2016Survey MethodologyIpswitch polled 555 IT team members who work in companies across the globe with greater than 500 employees. We surveyed IT pros globally, partnering with Vanson Bourne in Europe, between October-November 2015 to learn about their File Transfer habits and goals. About IpswitchIpswitch helps solve complex IT problems with simple solutions. The company’s software has been installed on more than 150,000 networks spanning 168 countries to monitor networks, applications and servers, and securely transfer files between systems, business partners and customers. Ipswitch was founded in 1991 and is based in Lexington, Massachusetts with offices throughout the U.S., Europe, Asia and Latin America. For more information, visit is a registered trademark of Ipswitch, Inc. in the United States and other countries.Media Contact:Charlotte Hanson/Kelly FriendTouchdown PR01252 / ###Source: RealWire