local crawls the web. not the same at all.

I would have to conclude that Google and Yahoo ‘local search’ platform’s infringe on Local.com’s newly rewarded patent.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=7,231,405.PN.&OS=pn/7,231,405&RS=PN/7,231,405

If people can find loopholes in the system, be it the patent system or the search system or whatever, in a way that allows them to make money legally without actually contributing anything or having a real idea or working for a living, well, whatever. It’s up to us to change the laws. But let’s not pretend, Mr. Clarke, that there is anything being “validated by the market” here, or anything entrepreneurial or creative or interesting or useful or fair. On the contrary.

By considering this sort of thing to be just regular business, worthy of the same respect one would give an actual innovation, we enourage otherwise smart people to spend their talents gaming the system. Peter, peer disapproval can be a healthy and powerful thing, and I think you should be a rather less agnostic on this sort of thing. Local.com, if your strategy is screw the little guy, I say screw you.

Patents, like laws, are considered binding until they are legally disqualified. Having a patent means that you are obligated to protect your rights in and to the IP by enforcing the patent. In general this means either threatening to enforce the patent (usually to accomplish some market strategy) or by actually enforcing it through claims of infringement and damages against a specific business or group of businesses.

Unfortunately for smaller businesses, claims of patent infringement can be devastating, since it will cost approximately $1 million to mount a significant defense. What usually happens is that several smaller players cave and the owner of the patent moves on to try and fry bigger fish.

From a legal perspective, this is where the game gets interesting. Bigger fish can afford to mount a defense. The biggest fish may even attempt to have the patent invalidated. It is at this point that prior art, anticipation, etc, become critical parts of the process. Until then people can argue about validity, but doing so accomplishes little except raising your blood pressure.

Next, remember, patent infringement is really not about what’s right (although we could all wish it were so). It’s about some lawyer standing in the courtroom with a jury composed of people who watch the Jerry Springer show, opening a laptop, showing a local search application and then pointing to the defendant and saying “This software from (Insert the Company name here) is exactly what my client invented and they stole it from him and have made billions in the process.” In reply, the defendant’s experts are going to explain how the algorithm really works, how computers really work, how databases really work and as the eyes of the jurors start glazing over, the plaintiff starts counting his money.

If you want to consider a real nightmare in patent law, look at Markman Hearings, a critical part of any patent lawsuit.

The Patent process is the U.S. is broken ! We need to find a way to fix it, not to complain about it being screwed-up.

Not even worth the paper it was written on! Good luck getting acquired for that “wonderful” patent/IP! Someone should fire the person who cam up with that brilliant idea!

This is definitely a strong case for hindering innovation. Most innovation tends to stem from startups and as Clark writes “you go after the small guys and establish a track record.” The long term damage these exercises pose to US tech should not be underestimated.

I am deeply saddened by these sort of activities and I for one will not be using local.com (which isn’t even that good anyway) anytime soon.