Mirror Worlds slaps Apple with patent infringement lawsuit over Time Machine
Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - 07:11 PM EDT "Apple last week was sued in the Eastern District of Texas for infringing on the patents of Mirror Worlds, a company that used to make desktop search and organization software," Thomas Claburn reports for InformationWeek.MacDailyNews Take: Let's stop here and take a now familiar detour. In February 2006, Sam Williams reported for MIT's Technology Review:
In one federal court in East Texas, plaintiffs have such an easy time winning patent-infringement lawsuits against big-tech companies that defendants often choose to settle rather than fight.
East Texas lawyer Michael C. Smith calls it the "rattlesnake speech." It generally occurs in the early stages of a patent trial in the Marshall, TX, courtroom of Judge T. John Ward, when some attorney has failed to read up on the rules specific to litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Like a scene out of the comedy movie "My Cousin Vinny," the speech starts with a polite invitation to approach the bench -- and ends with a stern warning to pick up the pace or else.
"He gives you a real talking to," says Smith, a partner with the Roth Law Firm in Marshall and chairman of the Eastern District's rule committee, a group of local attorneys that works with Judge Ward to set the guidelines for basic pre-trial and trial procedure. "He won't bite you that first time, but if you don't get the message, you'll wish you did."
Judge Ward's toughness is a big reason that Marshall, a city of fewer than 20,000 residents, located 150 miles east of Dallas, has become a destination for patent attorneys around the world.
In the rough calculus of intellectual property litigation, tough judges equate with speedy cases -- and that's exactly what you want if you're a plaintiff with limited cash, but potentially big-time settlement payments or damages from a company you claim is infringing on your patent.
As an example, attorney Smith cites the ongoing case of Laser Dynamics Inc. v. BenQ. It pits a Japanese plaintiff with a patent relating to optical disk drive recognition against a billion-dollar Taiwanese device maker. When defense counsel for BenQ failed to cough up a set of relevant e-mails in the pre-trial discovery phase, Ward, a jurist who has heard more than 160 patent cases in the seven years since his appointment to the federal bench by President Clinton, decided to make an example of the company: BenQ would have to pay a $500,000 fine and forfeit a third of its courtroom time in the upcoming case.
Claburn continues, "The lawsuit claims that Apple's computers, iPods, iPhones, and Mac OS X operating system infringe on Mirror Worlds' alternative to the desktop metaphor: organizing files in a time-based stack or stream."
"While the Eastern District of Texas is notorious in legal circles as the favored venue of patent trolls, Mirror Worlds' patents appear to have more merit than most because the ideas expressed aren't obvious, at least compared to controversial patents like Amazon's 1-Click patent. They reflect the work of Yale computer scientists Eric Freeman and David Gelernter, who in the mid-1990s recognized that the desktop metaphor has its limits and proposed to organize computer documents in a time-ordered stream. At the time, there was nothing like it," Claburn reports.
"Or was there? Though Apple did not respond to a request for comment, it may be able to argue that the HyperCard software it developed in the 1980s represents prior art, thereby invalidating some or all of Mirror World's claims," Claburn reports. "A more likely outcome, however, is a quiet settlement."
Full article here.

This kind of stupidity always makes me glad that we don't have software patents on the european side of the Atlantic.
The only purpose those have is to lay trivial patents as landmines in the path of any halfway decent developer so that ony the biggest, baddest companies with the richest "defensive" patent portfolios can afford to survive in the long run, even though the "inventions" are really straightforward in most cases.
Just disgusting. (And that applies to many of Apple's own patents just as well, even if they don't have much of a choice under the circumstances.)