Because no one else is doing it--not even the media.
-
ericbarbour
- Sucks Admin
- Posts: 4592
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
- Location: The ass-tral plane
- Has thanked: 1141 times
- Been thanked: 1833 times
Post
by ericbarbour » Wed Apr 08, 2020 9:34 pm
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200 ... edia.shtml
The PDF of the letter was
posted on DocumentCloud for your amusement. (I guess!)
Lolol:
We recognize that WIKIPEDIA has several options for addressing WordLogic's infringement concerns, including litigation and/or WIKIPEDIA attempting to invalidate the patents by filing an Inter Partes Review (IPR) with the Patent Office. Although we are confident in the validity and infringement of the WordLogic patents, we appreciate the inherent risks and costs to a patent owner in pursuing litigation and/or facing the uncertainties of IPR proceedings. To that end, and to encourage the continued use of WordLogic patented technology, WordLogic is offering a discounted, lump sum fee of $30,000 in exchange for a paid-up one-time license.
-
Abd
- Sucks Warrior
- Posts: 749
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
- Has thanked: 72 times
- Been thanked: 48 times
Post
by Abd » Thu Apr 09, 2020 12:53 am
Is it "stupid"? There is a reference to a patent case, though the defendant's name and therefore the case name has been mispelled. That case was resolved in 2018 and I could obtain case documents if anyone cares.
If there is a reasonable case for patent infringement, the license fee suggested could be reasonable, compared to costs of litigation. This would depend on details of how the Wikipedia look-ahead system works, and is not a simple issue, I think.
I find a quick judgment of "lulz" amusing myself. I'd really want to see those documents before developing such an opinion. The law firm seems reputable.
