So yet another 'You've violated our patents, but we aren't saying which ones' story?
I don't say this often, but I'm going to this time:
That should be illegal.
It's a threat, clear and simple. It's an attempt to force them into action without actually having to have anything concrete. It causes a ton of pain and anguish, and costs a lot of money, even if they never actually sue. It's absolutely ridiculous and should never be allowed.
Is it really that different than libel or slander? You're accusing someone of something without providing any proof that it's true. And if you just say 'whoops' afterwards, you're scott-free, but they've still got damages to their reputation and bottom line.
It reminds me of the Monster Cable lawsuit against Blue Jeans Cables[1] and any other company using "Monster" in the name; including, but not limited to, a go-cart racing company.
Fortunately, the BJC owner was a lawyer in another life and peeled back the layers of the lawsuit to find exactly what you describe... a giant, non-sensical, non-cohesive set of documents showing nothing in particular, not even addressing the specific complaints, just meant as a "pile of scary papers" to make people freak out and write checks.
You are absolutely right, this IS extortion and it IS illegal, but there aren't a whole lot of protections in the system for a little guy trying to counter-sue a firm full of lawyers that have more financial resources to drag it on.
No they are not. Finnish company is subject to Finnish laws and Finnish laws only. If they produce something in Finland, then only valid Finnish patents are their concern. US Patents are not valid for Rovio in Finland.
Now. If and when their _product_ is sold in US and infringes some US patents then patent owner can block selling that product and this is the only thing they can do. No damages no nothing. In Rovio's case the only thing Llodsys can achieve is to prevent Apple for selling Angry Birds in US. Nothing more.
If you sell products in the US, the courts will enjoy sales or award damages here if you violate patents/copyrights. Apple would be forced, for instance, to pay the judgement then rovio the extra, etc.
The amended complaint clearly shows what patents Lodsys is accusing Rovio of infringing.
"On May 22, 2007, U.S. Patent No. 7,222,078 (the "'078 patent") was duly and legally issued for "Methods and Systems for Gathering Information from Units of a Commodity Across a Network."
...
Rovio makes, sells, uses, imports, and/or offers to sell infringing applications, including but not limited to Angry Birds for iPhone and Angry Birds for Android, which infringe at least claims 1 and 24 of the '078 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271."
Rovio makes, sells, uses, imports, and/or
offers to sell infringing applications, including but not limited to Angry Birds for iPhone andAngry Birds for Android, which infringe at least claim 27 of the „565 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.
U.S. Patent No. 7,620,565 - 27. A tangible computer readable medium having stored thereon, computer executable instructions that, if executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform a method comprising: monitoring a product for an occurrence in the product of a trigger event of a predefined plurality of trigger events, incrementing a counter corresponding to the trigger event upon detection of the occurrence of the trigger event in the product; displaying a user interface, configured to probe for information regarding a use of the product, if the counter exceeds a threshold; storing an input received from the user interface on a device; and transmitting the input to a server.
Rovio makes, sells, uses, imports, and/or offers to sell infringing applications, including but not limited to Angry Birds for iPhone and Angry Birds for Android, which infringe at least claims 1 and 24 of the '078 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.
U.S. PATENT NO. 7,222,078 - 1. A system comprising: units of a commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface, which is part of each of the units of the commodity, configured to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the corresponding unit of the commodity, and further configured to elicit, from a user, information about the user's perception of the commodity, a memory within each of the units of the commodity capable of storing results of the two-way local interaction, the results including elicited information about user perception of the commodity, a communication element associated with each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collecting the results of the interactions at the central location.
U.S. PATENT NO. 7,222,078 - 24. The system of claim 1 wherein the two-way local interactions comprise a transaction for sale of a product or a service contract for the commodity.
That first one looks like a counter that triggers a data push to a server when it reaches a certain number. Really?
That second one is a simple feedback form that pushes the data to a server? Really?
The second one looks more like some sort of ad-hoc network that's generated and used for transactions of some sort. I could imagine a bit-coin app that creates an ad-hoc network between two phones and transfers funds in the ad-hoc network. That's my read of the patent. Am I way off here? And, does Angry Birds really violate that? We very much need a lawyer here to expound upon this.
Kind of similar to how some companies with a lot of money bully people into submission by suing them with the intent of forcing them to run out of money, even if when the company wouldn't actually win the case.
I so wish we'd get Euro-style loser pays (it's really Judge assigns fees, and one party doesn't pay everything, nor do they let expensive lawyer fees be billed if they're unwarranted, etc).
Then companies could be more "Bring it on" when things are totally out there.
I believe it is fairly common in the US for victors to be awarded money to cover their legal fees. The problem is that none of these companies being sued are confidant they would win, and they don't have the money to cover losing.
I think the other part of that problem is that, even if they could be guaranteed to win and have their costs paid, the whole process could take a very long time, and they have to be able to pay all those costs in the meantime.
I don't say this often, but I'm going to this time:
That should be illegal.
It's a threat, clear and simple. It's an attempt to force them into action without actually having to have anything concrete. It causes a ton of pain and anguish, and costs a lot of money, even if they never actually sue. It's absolutely ridiculous and should never be allowed.
Is it really that different than libel or slander? You're accusing someone of something without providing any proof that it's true. And if you just say 'whoops' afterwards, you're scott-free, but they've still got damages to their reputation and bottom line.
It's disgusting and cowardly.