Allen v. World and Dog - First Amended Complaint
Dec 29, 2010, 18:02 (1 Talkback[s])
(Other stories by Pamela Jones)
"Paul Allen's Interval Licensing has met the deadline to file an
amended complaint [PDF] with specificity. If you can read it
without passing out laughing and/or having your head explode with
disgust, I'd like to know what happened to you as a child that
blunted your normal emotions.
"No wonder he didn't want to be specific. This document is
Exhibit A for why software patents are an oozing pimple on the nose
of the US legal system. Interval is suing because it can, and it
would like to be paid by anyone using the Internet in a normal way,
and it can because the US Patent Office thought it was good policy
to rubber stamp stupid software patents right and left, with the
idea that they could be vetted in litigation.
"And vetted they will be. But at what cost to the US economy? I
can't believe any of these patents will survive intact. Normally,
I'd ask you to look for prior art, but I see other, easier ways to
toss them in the dumpster, so even if I weren't busy doing Comes v.
Microsoft exhibits, I still wouldn't ask you to bother. Post any
that you happen to know about, but I'm not asking unless one of the
defendants specifically asks for us to do it.
"Here it is as text:"