GraphOn, which considers itself a "leading worldwide developer of server-based application publishing and Web-enabling software solutions," today announced that it is suing Google for infringing on four of GraphOn's patents. According to the complaint (embedded below), Google Base, AdWords, Blogger, Sites, and YouTube allegedly infringe on GraphOn's patent for a "unique method of maintaining an automated and network-accessible database" - a patent that is so broad, it basically covers the complete Internet as we know it today.
These four patents were filed between July 1998 and May 2004. The earliest, 6,324,538, covers self-publishing on a database driven website and almost reads like a description of a modern blog, though it is more concerned with publishing directories. The later three patents (6,850,940, 7,028,034, and 7,269,591) build upon this and mostly include methods for paying for these services. We are no patent lawyers here, but looking over these patents, a lot of it seems to be material that has been covered in database textbooks since the early days of the net.
GraphOn's stock is currently up 16% for the day and is now trading at a near record high for 2008 of $0.29. At the height of the first Internet bubble, Graph on was trading for more than $22.
This lawsuit against Google is part of GraphOn's typical modus operandi. Within the last few years, the company has filed lawsuits against AutoTrader.com (also for the 6,324,538 patent), Match.com, Yahoo, eHarmony, and CareerBuilder. We have been trying to get more information about these other lawsuits, but it doesn't seem like any of these suits were either settled or have gone to court yet, except for the AutoTrader.com suit, which was settled through a licensing agreement in January of 2008.
The fact that the company proudly reports this in the press-release helps to put this suit against Google into perspective: this is exactly what GraphOn does. It is interesting that GraphOn waited for five days before issuing this press release. It would almost seem like the company was hoping to drive some publicity by just filing the suit on the 13th, but when that didn't happen, they were more or less forced to announce the suit themselves.
We have embedded the actual complaint below, courtesy of Justia.com:
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
Remember the lawsuit about the use of GIF images on Websites?
That would be the all time record for the most all encompassing lawsuit.
But it is understandable that a relatively unknown firm would want some recognition for its innovation that is effecting millions around the world
Posted by: Public Relations | August 18, 2008 10:36 AM
I'm sorry, but I gotta say it....
GraphOn: Apply directly to the database
GraphOn: Apply directly to the database
GraphOn: Apply directly to the database
GraphOn: Available without a prescription at internets everywhere.
Posted by: J.T Dabbagian | August 18, 2008 10:57 AM
ridiculous. their business is filing lawsuits for a living. and it's a profitable one if you can get it in front of the right judge.
google needs to fight it to put these guys out of business. RIM should be an example of how out of hand this crap can get.
their stocks are going up only b/c people think they will get a big payout -- which means if you want to discourage this behavior you've got to punish the speculators that are banking on a big payout so that they don't bet on companies like these con artists.
J. T > FUNNY!
Posted by: no yes maybe | August 18, 2008 11:14 AM
Considering selling short on GraphOn. I've just started teaching myself patent law since too many companies rely on revenue coming from patent lawsuits. I figure Google will make the claim that the patent is too general and ask it to be invalidated, thus driving the stock of GraphOn tumbling down.
Posted by: Amit Varia | August 18, 2008 11:42 AM
To Web 2.0 this is like enforcing a patent on breathing.
Their ridiculous patents basically cover all web apps, wikis, CMS systems, comment engines (oops violating it right now). By this logic they could sue anyone with a data-driven website.
As someone who owns and builds publicly updateable web databases for a living, I really hope Google can invalidate their patent and kill these guys. What an annoyance this would be in the future!
Posted by: Ron | August 18, 2008 12:17 PM
Can't believe the patent office allowed this. Someone ought to talk to Rob McCool. As I recall, his original design for CGI in the NCSA web server in 1993 was to allow the web server to talk to a database. Certainly everyone was doing it long before these guys filed their patents.
Posted by: Tim O'Reilly
|
August 18, 2008 12:24 PM
There is nothing funny about suing for patent infringement. Just because they purchased most of the patents by acquiring another company does not mean they are not valid or should be tossed out just because it makes you unhappy that a company is suing another company for the patented idea.
The stock is below $5.00 you can’t short it - know what you are talking about before you write it.
If any one of you has heard of Acacia Research- Acacia Technologies ACTG you would understand a patent holding companies structure better. 100’s of companies are required to pay ACTG all the time for patent infringement. Perhaps you should review their patents http://www.acaciatechnologies.com/patentportfolio.htm . It’s the same as writing a song and recording it and then some BOZO steals it and records it and artist does not get paid. I suppose you think that’s ok as well.
The law suits have substance because the law firms handling the cases are not paid unless they win – no firm would take that much time on to fight a case if they weren’t getting paid. There is no out of pocket cost to Graphon unless they win the case.
Posted by: kip | August 18, 2008 1:57 PM
Allowing for the creation of companies with deep pockets who feel they can go around and extort businesses out of money by purchasing and suing for outdated and previously ignored patents (seriously, if the patent was filed in 1998, shouldn't this patent have come to light at some point in the last decade?) is seriously hindering innovation and damaging the free market spirit of todays open internet.
To Kip (#7) Recording artists routinely do not get paid royalties when record companies acquire the full rights to their material. And in fact there are many companies who do the exact same thing - acquire the intellectual property of under-performing or deceased artists and then go around suing everyone who might have used it, 20 years after it was relevant, where the original artist never sees a dime.
There is some serious abuse out there of patent and copyright law, creating frivolous lawsuits and it needs to be stopped.
Posted by: RW | August 18, 2008 2:48 PM