US judge lobs antivirus patents back to Hell

A US district court has torn the heart out of two patents wielded by Intellectual Ventures against two antivirus makers.

In a judgment this week, Chief Judge Leonard Stark ruled that Intellectual Ventures’ US patents 6,460,050 and 6,073,142 were “ineligible,” meaning they are too vague and the technologies they described unpatentable.

The ‘142 and ‘050 patents described email filters designed to catch spam and malware. A third Intellectual Ventures patent, 5,987,610, which described “computer virus screening methods and systems”, was upheld by the judge.

The three patents were brought before the Delaware district court for scrutiny by Symantec and Trend Micro after they were sued by Intellectual Ventures for alleged patent infringement. The antivirus pair wanted the patents torn up so they could undo Intellectual Ventures’ case against them.

“Trend has firmly believed that Intellectual Ventures’ case has been based on over-broad construction of invalid patents since it was targeted by IV in 2010, and we are appreciative of today’s vindication on the validity issue,” Trend Micro’s general counsel Felix Sterling said in a statement passed to El Reg.

In a Thursday court filing, Intellectual Ventures agreed to abandon its legal action against Trend, though the two sides were at odds over how their court costs should be split.

As for Symantec, Intellectual Ventures has already won a $17m patent-infringement judgment against the California-based biz: $9m of of that was down to the ‘142 patent.

The ruling may be welcome news for those seeking patent reform and the elimination of “patent trolls” that acquire patents and sue companies for alleged violations. Groups such as the EFF have condemned Intellectual Ventures as one of the worst patent troll offenders. Even populist TV funnyman John Oliver has taken a pop at patents…

Link (The Register)

Bloke faces 25 years in the cooler for upsetting Thai king on Facebook

Setting a record for what may be the most unreasonable jail sentence ever handed down over a Facebook post, a Thailand citizen has started a 25-year stretch behind bars for five pictures deemed insulting to the country’s monarchy.

Tiensutham Suttijitseranee, a 58-year-old businessman, was convicted in a closed military court earlier today, according to Reuters. His relatives and reporters were not allowed to attend, but his lawyer said he was given 10 years for each picture, and the 50-year sentence was then halved because he pleaded guilty.

Tiensutham posted five pictures to Facebook, and added captions that the court decided were defamatory to the Thai royal family. Thailand has the world’s toughest lèse-majesté laws, and it is a crime to insult or threaten to king, queen or regent.

Since a military coup in May 2014, the country’s prime minister – previously the Commander in Chief of the Royal Thai Army – has taken an aggressive stance against anything he feels insults the monarchy.

“Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years,” reads the law, although it has also been interpreted to mean almost anything connected to the royal family.

Link (The Register)

John Oliver Highlights The Ridiculousness Of Corporate Sovereignty Provisions

Now countries can try to counteract the influence of that kind of marketing, but if tobacco companies feel threatened, they’ll put them through legal hell. Let me take you on a world tour of how they attack laws intended to protect public health, because it’s kind of amazing.

Let’s start in Australia. In 2011, they passed a plain packaging law, and what that means is this. [Shows (fair use!) news clip describing required packaging of cigarettes with no branding, and scary health pictures]. Australia’s plain packaging law bans tobacco company branding from packaging and replaced it with upsetting photos, such as the toe tag on a corpse, the cancerous mouth, the nightmarish eyeball, or the diseased lung. Now, yes, I’m pretty sure I’d find a healthy lung disgusting, but, that thing does look like you’re trying to breathe through baked ziti, so [instructing staff] take it down! Just take it down!

Perhaps unsurprisingly, since this law was implemented, total consumption of tobacco cigarettes in Australia fell to record lows and… nightmares about eyeballs have risen to record highs. [Instructing staff] Take it down! Take down the demon eye!

To get these laws, though, Australia has had to run a gamut of lawsuits. First, two tobacco companies sued Australia in its highest court to stop them. The result, was a little surprising, as Australia’s attorney general let everyone know. [Shows clip of AG announcing not just the victory, but Big Tobacco having to pay the government’s legal fees.] Yes! Score one for the little guy! Even if that little guy is the sixth largest country in the world by landmass.

And the tobacco companies didn’t just lose. The judges called their case “delusive,” “unreal and synthetic” and said their case had “fatal defects.” ….

But Australia’s legal troubles were just beginning. Because then, Philip Morris Asia got involved. [Shows clips of a news report saying Philip Morris considering using ISDS provisions to take the Australian government to a tribunal claiming it lowered the value of the company’s trademarks].

That’s right. A company was able to sue a country over a public health measure, through an international court. How the fuck is that possible? Well, it’s really a simple explanation. They did it by digging up a 1993 trade agreement between Australia and Hong Kong which had a provision that said Australia couldn’t seize Hong Kong-based companies’ property. So, nine months before the lawsuits started, PMI put its Australian business in the hands of its Hong Kong-based Philip Morris Asia division, and then they sued, claiming that the “seized property” in question, were the trademarks on their cigarette packages.

And you’ve got to give it to them: that’s impressive. Someone should really give those lawyers a pat on the back… and a punch in the face. But, a pat on the back first. Pat, then punch. Pat, punch….

Link (Techdirt)