Definition - "Patent Troll"

"PATENT TROLL" - Any party that intentionally misconstrues the claims of their patent to assert it against another. A patent troll does not have to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) or in any particular industry, all that is required is an intentional misconstruing of the claims in an attempt to extort money from another.


Disclaimer - All information and postings in this blog are provided for educational purposes only. Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice and you should not rely on any information herein as such. If you do not have a signed engagement agreement with me, then you are not represented by me and you should retain your own attorney for any legal issues you are having.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

More potential prior art for Lodsys patents

Note - I really like this first reference, but have not had the time to compare it to the claim charts.














Non-Patent Literature  (I currently have not found these references, but would like to see them.)

"Tiny Computer," Popular Science, Feb. 1977, p. 75
"Infopac I1/2 Data Terminal," Azur Data Literature, Mar. 1976

Thank you to Richard Pitt in the comments to pointing my search in a specific direction.



  1. Macrosolve SucksJune 30, 2011 at 2:37 PM

    How about Patent 5857201?

    It is good to see a qualified individual such as yourself weigh in on this subject.

  2. The Popular Science article is available on Google Books at,+Feb.+1977&source=bl&ots=CO5X4KAflK&sig=YAiFRWl8Qw4A-UfvYSlGkCnlE4c&hl=en&ei=M_kVTqSiA5O4sAOpzbzeDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

  3. This is only partially tongue in cheek, but I really think this maps well to the elements of Claim 1 of 7,222,078: A Strip-o-gram service run by a central office that provides strippers for bachelor parties and such like, especially one where the stripper gets tips.

    The stripper is the unit of commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations.

    The stripper's interaction with the customer is the 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.

    The stripper is obviously "configured to elicit, from a user, information about the user's perception of the commodity" - Any stripper worth her or his salt is going to work the crowd by eliciting such feedback in an ongoing basis during the performance.

    "a memory within each of the units ..." The stripper's brain/memory

    "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," The stripper reports back to the home office, whether it is phoning in after the job is done, or just going back to the office and reporting, there will be some communication to the boss about how the job went. However that is done is using a "communication element" of the stripper.

    And finally, whoever does the office work at the home office is "a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collecting the results of the interactions at the central location."

    The difference between this and, say, pizza delivery, is that if you specify a pizza as the unit of commodity then it does not contain the user interface that is used to elicit feedback, or the memory or the communication system. But any business that dispatches people to perform a service would have all the elements of the claim.

    Is there anything that would require prior art to be performed on a computer?

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. I was wondering if the ATARI GameLine service counts as previous art, it was a service for game delivery, they sold a cartridge that allowed people to rent games for a limited time for a fee, later they must have to pay again.

    There must be some advertise on old computer magazines.