You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to solr-user@lucene.apache.org by LaMaze Johnson <la...@zesco.com> on 2011/08/16 20:33:16 UTC

Faceted Search Patent Lawsuit - Please Read

Just wanted to make people aware of a company called Kolera that is sending
threatening letters via their law firm, manatt, phelps, phillips in regard
to violation of their patent U.S. Patent No. 6,275,821 titled "Method and
System for Executing a Guided Parametric Search.

Apparently, they believe that this patent gives them the rights to faceted
search technology.  Consequently, anyone who uses this technology without
paying licensing fees is potentially a target of litigation.  They have
outstanding suits with companies such as Microsoft and Ebay.  Additionally,
Adobe filed a counter-suit on August 10, 2011.    Unfortunately, I received
a letter this afternoon and we are determining how to proceed.

Just thought I would make others aware of this.  I'd appreciate any insight
others might have regarding the issue.

--
View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Faceted-Search-Patent-Lawsuit-Please-Read-tp3259475p3259475.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Faceted Search Patent Lawsuit

Posted by LaMaze Johnson <la...@zesco.com>.
Walter Underwood wrote:
> 
> I have no plan to look at the patents, but there is some serious prior art
> in faceted search. First, faceted classification for libraries was
> invented by S. R. Ranganathan in 1933. Computer search for libraries dates
> from the 1960's, probably. Combining the two is obvious, even back then.
> 
> wunder
> 

Adobe in their lawsuit is claiming that the patent is invalid.  I was amazed
that any such patent even existed on something so ubiquitous across the web.
Obviously a ruling on the merits of the patent are needed.  I guess this is
where patent lawyers come in to the equation.


--
View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Faceted-Search-Patent-Lawsuit-Please-Read-tp3259475p3262048.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Faceted Search Patent Lawsuit

Posted by Gora Mohanty <go...@mimirtech.com>.
Hi,

Sorry for the top-quote: On a
mobile.

A discussion on the evils of
patents aside, shirley library
catalogues are prior art. I
remember such systems giving
lists of matches by category, if
maybe not counts.

Will look at the patent applications, but sheesh,
what a waste of time and resources.

Regards,
Gora
On 17-Aug-2011 8:36 PM, "Walter Underwood" <wu...@wunderwood.org> wrote:
> I have no plan to look at the patents, but there is some serious prior art
in faceted search. First, faceted classification for libraries was invented
by S. R. Ranganathan in 1933. Computer search for libraries dates from the
1960's, probably. Combining the two is obvious, even back then.
>
> wunder
>
> On Aug 17, 2011, at 7:55 AM, Matt Shields wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, LaMaze Johnson <la...@zesco.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Paul Libbrecht-4 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Robert,
>>>>
>>>> I believe, precisely, the objective of such a thread is to be helped by
>>>> knowledgeable techies into being able to do what you say.
>>>>
>>>> If Johnson gave only 3 lines of details, such as claimed patent URLs or
>>>> dates, we might easily be able to tell him the pointer of a publication
>>>> that would discourage such patent-trolling.
>>>>
>>>> paul
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sorry. I assumed the information I provided would lead any
resourceful
>>> techie to the details. At any rate here is some additional information:
>>>
>>> Patent Claim:
>>>
>>>
http://www.google.com/patents?id=oFwIAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=6275821&hl=en&ei=57ZLTs7jHs3HsQKWvsjcCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA
>>>
>>> Background:
>>> http://www.ndcalblog.com/2011/07/ebay-prevails-in-limiting-patent.html
>>>
>>> Ebay/Microsoft suit:
>>>
>>>
http://www.whda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/2011.5.12-MO-Ebay-v.-Parts-River.pdf
>>>
>>> Adobe suit:
>>> http://news.priorsmart.com/adobe-systems-v-kelora-systems-l4in/
>>>
>>> Consequently, they have been known to act on these threats. I don't
think
>>> it would be prudent to ignore them. At any rate, lawyers will be
involved
>>> and they aren't cheap. Until the suits have been played out with the
likes
>>> of eBay, Microsoft, and Adobe, potentially anyone who uses faceted
search
>>> systems could potentially be at risk.
>>>
>>> Take it for what it's worth. Don't shoot the messenger.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>>
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Faceted-Search-Patent-Lawsuit-Please-Read-tp3259475p3261514.html
>>> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>
>> I, for one, am grateful for you posting this information. Thank you
>>
>> Matthew Shields
>> Owner
>> BeanTown Host - Web Hosting, Domain Names, Dedicated Servers, Colocation,
>> Managed Services
>> www.beantownhost.com
>> www.sysadminvalley.com
>> www.jeeprally.com
>

Re: Faceted Search Patent Lawsuit

Posted by Darren Govoni <da...@ontrenet.com>.
patent rights only last 17 years then it is public domain.

On 08/17/2011 11:05 AM, Walter Underwood wrote:
> I have no plan to look at the patents, but there is some serious prior art in faceted search. First, faceted classification for libraries was invented by S. R. Ranganathan in 1933. Computer search for libraries dates from the 1960's, probably. Combining the two is obvious, even back then.
>
> wunder
>
> On Aug 17, 2011, at 7:55 AM, Matt Shields wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, LaMaze Johnson<la...@zesco.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Libbrecht-4 wrote:
>>>> Robert,
>>>>
>>>> I believe, precisely, the objective of such a thread is to be helped by
>>>> knowledgeable techies into being able to do what you say.
>>>>
>>>> If Johnson gave only 3 lines of details, such as claimed patent URLs or
>>>> dates, we might easily be able to tell him the pointer of a publication
>>>> that would discourage such patent-trolling.
>>>>
>>>> paul
>>>>
>>> I'm sorry. I assumed the information I provided would lead any resourceful
>>> techie to the details.  At any rate here is some additional information:
>>>
>>> Patent Claim:
>>>
>>> http://www.google.com/patents?id=oFwIAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=6275821&hl=en&ei=57ZLTs7jHs3HsQKWvsjcCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA
>>>
>>> Background:
>>> http://www.ndcalblog.com/2011/07/ebay-prevails-in-limiting-patent.html
>>>
>>> Ebay/Microsoft suit:
>>>
>>> http://www.whda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/2011.5.12-MO-Ebay-v.-Parts-River.pdf
>>>
>>> Adobe suit:
>>> http://news.priorsmart.com/adobe-systems-v-kelora-systems-l4in/
>>>
>>> Consequently, they have been known to act on these threats.  I don't think
>>> it would be prudent to ignore them.  At any rate, lawyers will be involved
>>> and they aren't cheap.  Until the suits have been played out with the likes
>>> of eBay, Microsoft, and Adobe, potentially anyone who uses faceted search
>>> systems could potentially be at risk.
>>>
>>> Take it for what it's worth.  Don't shoot the messenger.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Faceted-Search-Patent-Lawsuit-Please-Read-tp3259475p3261514.html
>>> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>> I, for one, am grateful for you posting this information.  Thank you
>>
>> Matthew Shields
>> Owner
>> BeanTown Host - Web Hosting, Domain Names, Dedicated Servers, Colocation,
>> Managed Services
>> www.beantownhost.com
>> www.sysadminvalley.com
>> www.jeeprally.com

Re: Faceted Search Patent Lawsuit

Posted by Walter Underwood <wu...@wunderwood.org>.
I have no plan to look at the patents, but there is some serious prior art in faceted search. First, faceted classification for libraries was invented by S. R. Ranganathan in 1933. Computer search for libraries dates from the 1960's, probably. Combining the two is obvious, even back then.

wunder

On Aug 17, 2011, at 7:55 AM, Matt Shields wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, LaMaze Johnson <la...@zesco.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Paul Libbrecht-4 wrote:
>>> 
>>> Robert,
>>> 
>>> I believe, precisely, the objective of such a thread is to be helped by
>>> knowledgeable techies into being able to do what you say.
>>> 
>>> If Johnson gave only 3 lines of details, such as claimed patent URLs or
>>> dates, we might easily be able to tell him the pointer of a publication
>>> that would discourage such patent-trolling.
>>> 
>>> paul
>>> 
>> 
>> I'm sorry. I assumed the information I provided would lead any resourceful
>> techie to the details.  At any rate here is some additional information:
>> 
>> Patent Claim:
>> 
>> http://www.google.com/patents?id=oFwIAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=6275821&hl=en&ei=57ZLTs7jHs3HsQKWvsjcCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA
>> 
>> Background:
>> http://www.ndcalblog.com/2011/07/ebay-prevails-in-limiting-patent.html
>> 
>> Ebay/Microsoft suit:
>> 
>> http://www.whda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/2011.5.12-MO-Ebay-v.-Parts-River.pdf
>> 
>> Adobe suit:
>> http://news.priorsmart.com/adobe-systems-v-kelora-systems-l4in/
>> 
>> Consequently, they have been known to act on these threats.  I don't think
>> it would be prudent to ignore them.  At any rate, lawyers will be involved
>> and they aren't cheap.  Until the suits have been played out with the likes
>> of eBay, Microsoft, and Adobe, potentially anyone who uses faceted search
>> systems could potentially be at risk.
>> 
>> Take it for what it's worth.  Don't shoot the messenger.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Faceted-Search-Patent-Lawsuit-Please-Read-tp3259475p3261514.html
>> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> 
> 
> I, for one, am grateful for you posting this information.  Thank you
> 
> Matthew Shields
> Owner
> BeanTown Host - Web Hosting, Domain Names, Dedicated Servers, Colocation,
> Managed Services
> www.beantownhost.com
> www.sysadminvalley.com
> www.jeeprally.com

Re: Faceted Search Patent Lawsuit

Posted by Matt Shields <ma...@mattshields.org>.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, LaMaze Johnson <la...@zesco.com> wrote:

>
> Paul Libbrecht-4 wrote:
> >
> > Robert,
> >
> > I believe, precisely, the objective of such a thread is to be helped by
> > knowledgeable techies into being able to do what you say.
> >
> > If Johnson gave only 3 lines of details, such as claimed patent URLs or
> > dates, we might easily be able to tell him the pointer of a publication
> > that would discourage such patent-trolling.
> >
> > paul
> >
>
> I'm sorry. I assumed the information I provided would lead any resourceful
> techie to the details.  At any rate here is some additional information:
>
> Patent Claim:
>
> http://www.google.com/patents?id=oFwIAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=6275821&hl=en&ei=57ZLTs7jHs3HsQKWvsjcCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA
>
> Background:
> http://www.ndcalblog.com/2011/07/ebay-prevails-in-limiting-patent.html
>
> Ebay/Microsoft suit:
>
> http://www.whda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/2011.5.12-MO-Ebay-v.-Parts-River.pdf
>
> Adobe suit:
> http://news.priorsmart.com/adobe-systems-v-kelora-systems-l4in/
>
> Consequently, they have been known to act on these threats.  I don't think
> it would be prudent to ignore them.  At any rate, lawyers will be involved
> and they aren't cheap.  Until the suits have been played out with the likes
> of eBay, Microsoft, and Adobe, potentially anyone who uses faceted search
> systems could potentially be at risk.
>
> Take it for what it's worth.  Don't shoot the messenger.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Faceted-Search-Patent-Lawsuit-Please-Read-tp3259475p3261514.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

I, for one, am grateful for you posting this information.  Thank you

Matthew Shields
Owner
BeanTown Host - Web Hosting, Domain Names, Dedicated Servers, Colocation,
Managed Services
www.beantownhost.com
www.sysadminvalley.com
www.jeeprally.com

Re: Faceted Search Patent Lawsuit

Posted by LaMaze Johnson <la...@zesco.com>.
Paul Libbrecht-4 wrote:
> 
> Robert,
> 
> I believe, precisely, the objective of such a thread is to be helped by
> knowledgeable techies into being able to do what you say.
> 
> If Johnson gave only 3 lines of details, such as claimed patent URLs or
> dates, we might easily be able to tell him the pointer of a publication
> that would discourage such patent-trolling.
> 
> paul
> 

I'm sorry. I assumed the information I provided would lead any resourceful
techie to the details.  At any rate here is some additional information:

Patent Claim:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=oFwIAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=6275821&hl=en&ei=57ZLTs7jHs3HsQKWvsjcCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA

Background:
http://www.ndcalblog.com/2011/07/ebay-prevails-in-limiting-patent.html

Ebay/Microsoft suit:
http://www.whda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/2011.5.12-MO-Ebay-v.-Parts-River.pdf

Adobe suit: http://news.priorsmart.com/adobe-systems-v-kelora-systems-l4in/

Consequently, they have been known to act on these threats.  I don't think
it would be prudent to ignore them.  At any rate, lawyers will be involved
and they aren't cheap.  Until the suits have been played out with the likes
of eBay, Microsoft, and Adobe, potentially anyone who uses faceted search
systems could potentially be at risk.

Take it for what it's worth.  Don't shoot the messenger.



--
View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Faceted-Search-Patent-Lawsuit-Please-Read-tp3259475p3261514.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Faceted Search Patent Lawsuit

Posted by Paul Libbrecht <pa...@hoplahup.net>.
Le 17 août 2011 à 13:01, Robert Muir a écrit :

>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 03:58:29PM -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>> I know you mean well and are probably wondering what to do next [...]
>> 
>> Still, a short heads-up like Johnson's would seem OK?
>> After all, this is of concern to us all.
> 
> nothing to be concerned about, just a stupid patent troll, and I feel
> like this thread feeds him.
> 
> just dont give this "company" any money, do your homework first!!!!

Robert,

I believe, precisely, the objective of such a thread is to be helped by knowledgeable techies into being able to do what you say.

If Johnson gave only 3 lines of details, such as claimed patent URLs or dates, we might easily be able to tell him the pointer of a publication that would discourage such patent-trolling.

paul

Re: Faceted Search Patent Lawsuit - Please Read

Posted by Robert Muir <rc...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Tomas Zerolo
<to...@axelspringer.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 03:58:29PM -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> I know you mean well and are probably wondering what to do next [...]
>
> Still, a short heads-up like Johnson's would seem OK?
>
> After all, this is of concern to us all.
>

nothing to be concerned about, just a stupid patent troll, and I feel
like this thread feeds him.

just dont give this "company" any money, do your homework first!!!!

-- 
lucidimagination.com

Re: Faceted Search Patent Lawsuit - Please Read

Posted by Tomas Zerolo <to...@axelspringer.de>.
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 03:58:29PM -0400, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> I know you mean well and are probably wondering what to do next [...]

Still, a short heads-up like Johnson's would seem OK?

After all, this is of concern to us all.

Regards
-- tomás

Re: Faceted Search Patent Lawsuit - Please Read

Posted by Paul Libbrecht <pa...@hoplahup.net>.
While I agree with Grant we shouldn't engage on a legal discussion, it may be worth that this thread shares a few dates of when faceted search was used "in the old times"...

paul


Le 16 août 2011 à 22:02, LaMaze Johnson a écrit :

> 
> Grant Ingersoll-2 wrote:
>> 
>> I know you mean well and are probably wondering what to do next, but such
>> a discussion is really beyond the scope of this mailing list.  Most of us
>> aren't lawyers (I wonder if anyone here is?) and if we were, we wouldn't
>> likely speculate in public on something that can only be decided in the
>> courts.
>> 
>> -Grant
>> 
> 
> We will definitely be in touch with our legal counsel.  This was more a
> "heads up" in hopes that others aren't blindsided by this.  
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Faceted-Search-Patent-Lawsuit-Please-Read-tp3259475p3259733.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Faceted Search Patent Lawsuit - Please Read

Posted by LaMaze Johnson <la...@zesco.com>.
Grant Ingersoll-2 wrote:
> 
> I know you mean well and are probably wondering what to do next, but such
> a discussion is really beyond the scope of this mailing list.  Most of us
> aren't lawyers (I wonder if anyone here is?) and if we were, we wouldn't
> likely speculate in public on something that can only be decided in the
> courts.
> 
> -Grant
> 

We will definitely be in touch with our legal counsel.  This was more a
"heads up" in hopes that others aren't blindsided by this.  


--
View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Faceted-Search-Patent-Lawsuit-Please-Read-tp3259475p3259733.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Faceted Search Patent Lawsuit - Please Read

Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
I know you mean well and are probably wondering what to do next, but such a discussion is really beyond the scope of this mailing list.  Most of us aren't lawyers (I wonder if anyone here is?) and if we were, we wouldn't likely speculate in public on something that can only be decided in the courts.

-Grant

On Aug 16, 2011, at 2:33 PM, LaMaze Johnson wrote:

> Just wanted to make people aware of a company called Kolera that is sending
> threatening letters via their law firm, manatt, phelps, phillips in regard
> to violation of their patent U.S. Patent No. 6,275,821 titled "Method and
> System for Executing a Guided Parametric Search.
> 
> Apparently, they believe that this patent gives them the rights to faceted
> search technology.  Consequently, anyone who uses this technology without
> paying licensing fees is potentially a target of litigation.  They have
> outstanding suits with companies such as Microsoft and Ebay.  Additionally,
> Adobe filed a counter-suit on August 10, 2011.    Unfortunately, I received
> a letter this afternoon and we are determining how to proceed.
> 
> Just thought I would make others aware of this.  I'd appreciate any insight
> others might have regarding the issue.
> 
> --
> View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Faceted-Search-Patent-Lawsuit-Please-Read-tp3259475p3259475.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Faceted Search Patent Lawsuit - Please Read

Posted by LaMaze Johnson <la...@zesco.com>.
Gora Mohanty-3 wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 12:03 AM, LaMaze Johnson &lt;lamaze@zesco.com&gt;
> wrote:
> [...]
>> Just thought I would make others aware of this.  I'd appreciate any
>> insight
>> others might have regarding the issue.
> [...]
> 
> If you will permit me a moment of levity, from the perspective of
> someone in India, I would say, move to a non-third-world country
> that does not believe in Irrational Property Rights (IPR). Apply
> smileys as needed.
> 
> Regards,
> Gora
> 

Permission granted.  I'm interested to know how all of this will play out in
the courts.  Faceted search seems to be a component of every e-commerce site
on the web.

--
View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Faceted-Search-Patent-Lawsuit-Please-Read-tp3259475p3259672.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Faceted Search Patent Lawsuit - Please Read

Posted by Gora Mohanty <go...@mimirtech.com>.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 12:03 AM, LaMaze Johnson <la...@zesco.com> wrote:
[...]
> Just thought I would make others aware of this.  I'd appreciate any insight
> others might have regarding the issue.
[...]

If you will permit me a moment of levity, from the perspective of
someone in India, I would say, move to a non-third-world country
that does not believe in Irrational Property Rights (IPR). Apply
smileys as needed.

Regards,
Gora