kanetrain

We were targeted by Kelora and threatened by them multiple times. Glad to see this ruling come down and to see common sense prevail. This is a great day for internet retailers and the internet at large. Last line of summary from judge states... "Defendants shall recover their costs from Kelora." This is great news too because it is a shot at other Patent Trolls. You can't bring frivolous suits without fear of paying defendant's costs when you lose. In my opinion Kelora knew they would probably lose this all along, but dragged it out as long as they could so they could scare other retailers in to paying for a license to use "their technology".

This was an amazing letter. Great lesson for me on so many levels.

This is a great responsive design. This works, in part, because it is a news site with predictable image sizes, headline sizes, and very limited GUI. If you want to build something that is more graphically intensive, with more focus on visual appeal in traditional browser sizes, it gets more and more complicated. I'm working on a project now actually, and it's pain. I'm not saying it can't be done (it can with a lot of work). It's just more difficult and time-intensive the more graphics you use.

Well, this was timely. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2808110

you make a good point. if you are paying $150,000, you should at least talk to a laywer to make sure you are getting the "license" they claim to be offering. You really have 1 viable option at this point - talk to a very good patent attorney.

You can read the Microsoft counter-suit and get a complete factual history of this case. You can read about how Kelora systems was just created a few months ago and was just assigned the patent (presumably so they could appeal the case under a different entity and continue to try and extract settlements while the real case is being decided - speculation on my part based off of the MS countersuit). If you read the history (as detailed in the MS counter-suit), you'll see that the patent was recently invalidated and is now being appealed. I am extremely surprised that a legitimate law firm like Manatt would actually take this case and engage in such tactics. Strange times, indeed. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/61865036/Microsoft-v-PartsRiver-...

They can't be serious with that rebuttal. Intellectual Ventures is a parasite who's allowed to thrive on the innovation and hard-work of others simply because they have identified a loop-hole in an archaic system that was never built for or intended for the abusive nature in which they are exploiting it.

I personally believe that (unless something is done to change the system), generic software patents will ensure the slow grinding halt of entrepreneurial innovation in the U.S. Intellectual Ventures is the worst thing to happen to small web businesses and developers... ever.

There are lot of additional problems though... the way the Patent Office washes their hands and leaves it up to the courts to sort things out etc. I personally think ALL software patents should be abolished completely. In absence of that, NPE's "non-practicing entities" should not be allowed to hold patents. You need to prove that you are using it (in commerce) to keep the patent. And you should not be able to sell a patent unless it is sold with an existing revenue producing business. The US system has turned into a joke.

THIS. the patent office has turned in to a bit of a joke. Well, software patents in general have turned into a joke.

We got the same letter from Kelora. It's more than just you and me too. I just sent you an email to the contact info in your bio. Give me a call.

I was not even aware this was an ongoing battle in Europe. Going to have to go do some reading. It's a real problem here in the US. As I understand, patents are supposed to encourage innovation... but software patents in the US have gotten so out of hand that I think they actually sniffle innovation and productivity.

I agree with Andrew on this.

Matt - If the search team or gmail team are using email engagement as an indicator of a site's reputation or usefulness... or even to grade the quality of email from a site, it's really problematic. This can so easily be exploited to hurt someone else's site. You just create thousands of fake gmail accounts, sign up for your competitor's newsletter with all of them, and then never open any of their emails. Presumably there are already people doing this... and making sure those "fake" account appear as real as possible so Gmail bots can't tell the difference.

I know for a fact that Gmail has implemented some (overly aggressive, and really far-reaching) "spam" triggers over the last few months. Many of them have been scaled way back over the past few weeks but the crux of the new Gmail "spam" filters centered around what Jake is explaining here: Non-engagement.

This is troubling in it's own right because of the possibility of exploitation for nefarious purposes to hurt someone else's site. I did not know about the possibility of search results being affected by the same overly-aggressive spam filters. This may not be the case, but if this is true, it is troubling.

The notion that email engagement is a good indicator of a site's sender reputation or a site's search reputation is problematic. This can be gamed so easily. I could set up 5,000 fake email addresses at gmail, subscribe to my competitor's email newsletter, and then never ever open any email for the next 6 months. Presumably, this would get them blacklisted in Gmail and (possibly) blacklisted and dropped from organic search results as well.

Cue the black market for non-engaging gmail accounts in 3...2...1...