Paul Allen Sues Everybody

August 27, 2010 By Ryan Fleming

The Microsoft co-founder has filed suit against Google, Apple, Yahoo, Netflix, Facebook, and more, claiming that they are all violating patents owned by Allen’s defunct Interval Research.

If something is worth doing, it is worth doing right. Apparently that is a lesson that Paul Allen believes in. In what may be one of the more inclusive lawsuits of recent memory, Allen has decided to sue pretty much everybody. In the world. Or at least everybody on the Internet that is using what he sees as technology that was patented by his now-defunct company, Interval Research, and that is almost everyone.

The suit specifically stems from four patents that make up the building blocks of online commerce, and are seen in almost every form of news-based website. According to the lawsuit obtained by Wired, one of the patents deals with the technology that allows companies to include recommendations to customers based on what they are looking at. A second patent covers similar technology for news stories that recommends and links stories based on the one readers are currently reading.

Almost every website now uses something similar. If you scroll down past this article you will see other stories listed under “related posts” (wait…please don’t sue us, Mr. Allen!). Two other patents relate to showing info on a Web page, including news and stock quotes.

The full list of defendants are: Aol, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, Officemax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTube.

You might notice both Microsoft and Amazon missed the exclusive defendants list. Obviously Allen’s ties with Microsoft still run deep, and Amazon’s headquarters in Seattle are located in buildings owned by Allen.

One thing is for sure: Right now there are some extremely excited lawyers now on the clock. Perhaps the defendants will combine their resources and form one Voltron-like lawyer.

Showing 27 comments

just a thought at 12:20am 7th October 2010 There is a lot more to this than meets the eye. Allen is a big promoter of new technology. The suits are obviously ridiculous. Why file them? To take a dive, lose, and set a precedent unfavorable to patent trolls.
Lothlorian at 1:25pm 30th August 2010 I am sure that Paul Allen does not care. Other people and the public at large do not matter when you have that much money. You can buy whatever you want when you want to buy it. When i think of Paul Allen I think Microsoft, Space Ship One, and Star Trek geek. In the future I will think Greedy, money hungry, Lawyer up.
RedmanRedneck at 5:58pm 28th August 2010 Who knew Bill Gates was the attractive one?
Coward at 12:48am 28th August 2010 How come Microsoft is not being sued too?
1. Jessica B. at 12:20pm 29th August 2010 Because Paul Allen still has deep ties there. Same with Amazon which is in his hometown of Seattle.
  1. Jason at 2:16pm 29th December 2010 I wonder if that in itself will through a cog in the machine for defense of his patent. He cannot arbitrarily enforce a patent he has to "Defend ALL" abuses of the patent.
Jon at 12:09am 28th August 2010 The problem IS patent law. I am sure the patents are legitimate based on patent law (patent law for computer tech is a joke). The problem is that even if you could patent these basic concepts should a patent be permitted for obvious, totally unavoidable concepts? How can you patent the most simple basic ideas? You could theoretically patent the wheel by describing in technical and very specific details using gravitational formulas and blah blah blah. According to these patents I as a web designer could be sued because I use related links and the same navigation ideas that everyone else uses based on simple common sense. The patents would apply to EVERYONE WHO CREATES ANYTHING ON THE WEB not just Apple, or Google. You can't patent "breathing" or "walking". As far as I'm concerned these ideas can't possibly be patented because they are so simple. The patents listed in the suit are based on COMMON SENSE. You don't need a team of geniuses sitting around in an office with white boards and energy drinks, spending days of sleepless nights brainstorming to finally come up with "Related Stories" links on a news web site. This is completely absurd. However, you of course should be able to patent or copyright specific code to achieve those results. Like Adobe owns the source code for Photoshop but doesn't own the patent for "painting on a computer". Basically you shouldn't be able to patent a technology that a child can discover on his own with just a few minutes using a computer. All of those patents were violated by people independently all over the planet probably at the same time without any previous knowledge that patents even existed or that it was even a patentable idea. If this backstard actually gets money for any of these so called patent violations innovation is dead. There is no point creating anything new because every simple basic good idea will eventually be patented and we can't even walk down the street without violating someone's patent. There was a quote I heard from a music industry executive. His dream was to figure out how to get money from anyone who heard any song from any source anywhere. This is the world we live in now. It's getting worse everyday.
1. american at 1:05am 28th August 2010 How do you know the tech became basic before the invention. Then why others didnt have it. You understand the meaning...HE INVENTED IT
saveevildave at 12:05am 28th August 2010 wow! I cant believe i spent time reading your supremely flawed comment ....
Skocja at 11:17pm 27th August 2010 There a lawyers who haven't been born yet that will be wealhy on this.
1. Jason at 2:14pm 29th December 2010 Thank you, I'm hoping to do just that. Hehe, when the rich get crazy it's always an easy time to capsize their ship and jolly roger. And I'll donate 50% to non-crazy charities.
Patrick M Dacre at 11:09pm 27th August 2010 The real question here is whether Mr. Allen pursued 'vigorous' defence of that patent, at any time,. That will of course come out in the legal wash. Methinks this is like Unisys attempting to patent the use of 'gif' and forcing all and any people to pay them for use of a gif image. That one went south too. The US Patent laws are based on material expressions, not intellectual expressions, so this appears to be a gambit by Mssr. Allen(with others in cahoots, perhaps), or it's just another in the long list of 'shoot me in the foot through my own ear, episodes when the sharks eat themselves. None of those groups that are enjoined are pure either. Long live Community Commons licensing.
David3260 at 11:06pm 27th August 2010 Why is it that the wealthiest is always the one demonized? He is rich because of, I guess, some ingenuity; and this is a patent claim lawsuit.... He developed it you idiots, he also knew that internet would be spread through cable lines while you guys were too excited about a Supernintendo.
1. Jason at 2:11pm 29th December 2010 Did he really invent it? And, did he perform diligence in protecting it. Or is he simply bored now and this is another frivolous lawsuit but with a bit of way off reasoning. If it can be shown that he was grossly negligent in protecting it, given his position he should be held to a higher standard as are other professionals and his bit of way off reasoning won't be enough to protect him when a world class counter lawsuit goes up against him. I cannot wait till I pass my bar. I'm self made and crazier than the next guy and chomping at the bit to battle lunacy, and we all know there is plenty of that to going around and to keep me busy.
notsoevildave at 11:05pm 27th August 2010 It is easy to get that impression, evildave, from the oversimplified descriptions bloggers and columnists give, but in fact it is not that simple. The US PTO demands a mechanism for achieving the result, not just a specification of the outcome; in addition, it demands detailed description of a concrete realization and judges the correctness and accuracy thereof. PTOs outside the US are even more demanding.
Jim at 10:58pm 27th August 2010 He wants what he created 10 years ago? I bet all of the vendors, suppliers, workers et al that got screwed when this billionaire filed bankruptcy with Charter communications would like to get what was coming to them, also.
Bob at 10:58pm 27th August 2010 This is a completely incorrect statement regarding patent law. It is true that you do not have to create anything, but you do have to describe how to create it in sufficient detail such that a person of ordinary skill in the area could actually create it. And it has to actually work - it can't be some fantastic idea or machine that doesn't achieve its purpose. You can't just patent an end without describing the means to get there.
1. Bill at 12:28am 28th August 2010 This assumes the examiner of the patent application has the breadth of knowledge to distinguish a genuine innovation from a formal definition of what is already pedestrian. These patents serve as proof that examination failed to make the distinction.
Eggbert at 10:57pm 27th August 2010 As if M$ needed any less credibility
Shendeair at 10:54pm 27th August 2010 I am in the process of filing personal bankruptcy, does this mean I need to list Paul Allen as one of my creditors?
1. Jason at 2:05pm 29th December 2010 I would if I were you. They will have to send him paperwork which he will need to reply to, to maintain any claims on you. Maybe if everyone going bankrupt did that he could then occupy his time creatively making paper airplanes out of all his mail.
ml39612 at 10:50pm 27th August 2010 You're sure he's not a stand-in for Paul McCartney and the British Crown? He's the guy who is still looking for space aliens.
George Lyons at 10:45pm 27th August 2010 Paul, fix your shirt collar and get a wider bow-tie. If you don't like my advice....sue me. Cheers, George
evildave at 10:41pm 27th August 2010 It's a problem with the 'patent' laws themselves. You don't have to actually CREATE anything. You can just describe something like 'antigravity' in a patent, then sit on your butt watching and waiting for anyone to actually make 'antigravity', then sue them into ruin to make a quick buck. There are HUGE corporations doing nothing but squatting patents and copyrights. Other corporations making 'patents' to make sure things aren't invented. Like Texaco/Chevron investing in battery technology just to prevent electric cars from being made.
Azkobushi at 10:41pm 27th August 2010 I want some of what he is smoking.
Philip Smith at 10:35pm 27th August 2010 What shall it profit a man to gain the whole world....
guest at 10:28pm 27th August 2010 you might have to much money when....