Fischer to Users: Screw You
In the case of Addison Fischer, who in the early 90s bought his way onto a board seat with RSA, the USPTO awarded him two patents in 1994 and 1995 that deal with behavior blocking and integrity checking. These technologies play an important role in protecting users against today's malware threats. It's doubtful anyone knew Fischer's patents even existed (or even Fischer himself), and certainly the ideas and technologies were discussed and existed well prior to Fischer's strategic move. But thanks to the laws of the patent office, if Fischer has his way, users be damned - antivirus vendors will be prevented from employing these technologies unless he gets paid royalties. Fischer is currently using the patent-friendly east Texas court system to sue what nearly amounts to an entire industry: AVG, Check Point, Comodo, ESET, F-Secure, Iolo, Kaspersky, McAfee, Microsoft, MicroWorld Technologies, NetVeda, Norman Data Defense Systems, Novell, PC Tools, PWI, Sophos, Sunbelt Software, Symantec, Trend Micro, Velocity Micro and Webroot Software.
From a timing standpoint, Fischer's move couldn't be more insidious. Malware is at an all time high, antivirus vendors are on the front lines of the battle doing everything they can, and resources - both human and capital - are tapped. If Fischer had bothered to act on his patents and bring a product to market to help protect users, that might be one thing. But as it is, Fischer simply took advantage of an opportunity made possible by his having enough spare bucks to throw at a patent application over a dozen years ago. He stands to lose absolutely nothing since he never had a business or product based on the technology. The real losers here are the users - me, you, and everyone else. It's bad enough that malware is being used by criminals to rip us off; it seems even worse when the menace is coming from a businessman who just wants to pocket some extra cash at the expense of our safety.
So, in your opinion, if I work and developed an idea that can be patented everyone else should have the freedom to use the idea I developed as they choose????
You make it seem as if people who want their ideas protected as evil beings who are trying to destroy the world. That is nonsense.
Fischer’s patent is readily available on the USPTO website. Why didn’t the companies using his patent approach him and make him an offer? Is their hijacking his patent more exceptable and easier for you to swallow?
This article is just plan sad. There were patents laws in place at the time the companies began using the technology. Because Fischer did not bring a product to market does not lesser his ownership of the idea.
If you read the article, you will see that it specifically states, “the ideas and technologies were discussed and existed well prior to Fischer’s strategic move.”
There is no doubt the theory was discussed prior to the patent being issued. That does not preclude Fischer from applying for and being granted a patent. This does not change the fact that other companies were and are infringing on the patent. You can look at many inventions throughout history that were in heavy competition to be patented and first to the market.
I can see from your first paragraph you have a distain for the patent process. Your dislike of the current system does not, in any way, diminish a patent holder’s rights.
Under your line of thinking if you don’t agree with something you should simply ignore the rules governing it. If you don’t agree with the IRS, simply don’t pay your taxes.
The fact remains, the patent was in place. The patent was easily accessible to any of the companies who wanted to use the technology. It does not appear ANY of the companies attempted to license the technology from Fischer. Under the current patent system Fischer’s patented ideas are protected.
Why do you not feel the need to demonize am individual who is working within the current system and not demonize the large mutli-billion dollar corporations who are infringing on a patent and trying to line their pockets in the process.
You attack “anyone with money to burn has the ability to be granted a patent just for the sole purpose of blocking anyone else from using the idea”, but fail to look at the Corporations with money to burn who ignore the patent owners and decide they will market something regardless of what the law says.
I suggest you look up the meaning (and legal ramifications) of “prior art” and the implications of “first to invent” vs. “first to file”.
Perhaps you need to review the meaning of THEORY. Having a theory does not equate to invention. In order to have a patentable idea you must follow USPTO guidelines.
I have dealt with patents for the last 10 years. I am well aware of the impact prior art can have on an application.
Also, in order to prove “first to invent” you have to show a dilligence in working to reduce the invention to practice. Saying you had the idea/theory first does not entitle an individual to patent rights. The individual would have to show an effort to do something with the idea.
Also, remedies are available to contest the ability to own a patent. NO ONE brought ANY proceedings in the case of the Fischer Patent. So, please explain to me how you see Fischer protecting his rights as a patent owner as a negative.
You say Fischer “bought his way onto a board seat with RSA.” From what I have read he was a lead investor in the Company. Please point to ONE venture capital investor that does not sit on the board or have a representative on the board of the capitalized firm. It is called protecting your investment.
When the patents were granted did ANYONE contect the patent? Has anyone come forward since in an attempt to show the patent was granted erroneously due to prior art or another individual’s first to invent rights? None that I could locate.
So, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE someone explain to me how an indivual or corporation protecting their patent is a bad thing!!!!!