Competing in the Courtroom

As a company using advanced technology that is vital to your business model, how vulnerable can you be if you do not have a defensible patent position?

Before today, I had never heard of Interval Research Corporation.

In 1992, Paul Allen, co-founder of Microsoft, bankrolled this tech incubation lab with 100 million dollars. The goal was to create a "research setting seeking to define the issues, map out the concepts, and create the technology that will be important in the future...[pursuing] basic innovations in a number of early stage technologies and [seeking] to foster industries around them -- sparking opportunity for entrepreneurs and highlighting a new approach to research."

Interval Research was shut down in April 2000, but not before it had secured 300 patents, 4 of which are now owned by Interval Licencing LLC, a vehicle that Paul Allen is now using to sue Apple, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Netflix, YouTube and others.

One of these patented technologies allows a site to offer suggestions to consumers based on what they are currently viewing, another allows readers of an article to rapidly find related subject articles. The remaining two are related to what is happening peripherally to a user's main activity, such as flashing video images or updated stock quotes, news or ads.

If the patent infringement can be proved, the damages could be vast.

Incidentally, Amazon has been left out of the list of defendants, even though we know that one of Amazon's practices is to offer suggestions to consumers. I wonder if a strategic deal has been made, or if Amazon has a solid defensible position for its technology that does not infringe on Paul Allen's "patents".

So far, it seems that the defense that the sued internet companies are planning is based simply on the fact that Paul waited too long. It will be interesting to see if that will be enough to fend off the lawsuit.

If Paul Allen had sued a long time ago, it may have been harder to prove the monetary potential of the technology, which would affect the dollar value of settlements.

Here's a copy of the lawsuit filed:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/intervallicensingcomplaint0827.pdf

According to the Wall Street Journal, NTP, Inc, another licence holding company which successfully sued RIM in 2006 for $612 million dollars, is now suing Apple, Google, HTC, Microsoft and Motorola over infringement of 8 patents related to the delivery of email over wireless networks.

I find it very interesting that an innovative company that struggles to develop technology and make it work in the marketplace can remain so vulnerable if their technology can be proven to infringe on a patent held by someone else, and I am curious as to how executives at the likes of Google and Apple would approach innovation, if they know that "patent trolls" - companies that hold patents but don't do further development work - are waiting in the wings to pounce on their hard earned profit in the form of damages.