[gui-talk] FWd: Braille Monitor Article: Freedom Scientific FilesPatent Infringement Suitagainst GW Micro

[albert griffith]

We won't be able to answer questions about whether FS. Is bulying until the
court releases its opinion.  Right now we only know one side of the case.  

-----Original Message-----
From: gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of GEORGE AND PAMELA DOMINGUEZ
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 5:16 PM
To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] FWd: Braille Monitor Article: Freedom Scientific
FilesPatent Infringement Suitagainst GW Micro

I don't know what's the matter with these people at Freedom Scientific.  Why
are they so sue happy all of a sudden?  I do think they are trying to bully
GW Micro and anybody else they can.  Pam.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Steve Pattison 
To: Access-L ; GW Info 
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 11:38 PM
Subject: [gui-talk] FWd: Braille Monitor Article: Freedom Scientific
FilesPatent Infringement Suitagainst GW Micro


From: Scott Erichsen pianoman at scotterichsen.com
To: Vip-L vip-l at softspeak.com.au

The following is from the National Federation of the Blind's Braille
Monitor. It is quite comprehensive as far as it can be at this point.

Begin article
Freedom Scientific Files Patent Infringement Suit against GW Micro
by Daniel B. Frye
When two of the leading producers of access technology in the blindness
field have
differences that can apparently be resolved only in federal court, blind
consumers
deserve to know what is going on. How might the dispute affect this 
small
market?
Will the actions of either party influence consumer access to diverse,
responsive,
and competitive products in the U.S. and international blindness
communities?
Mindful of the importance of access technology to blind people and 
curious
about
the rationale and implications of the row that has developed between 
Freedom
Scientific
and GW Micro, we are reporting what we have discovered at this stage of 
the
argument
so that our readers will understand the issues involved in this 
litigation.
Here
is what we know at the moment:
On July 15, 2008, Freedom Scientific--the company that developed and
promotes the
JAWS screen reader and the PAC Mate Omni as well as other blindness and
low-vision
products--filed a patent infringement lawsuit against GW Micro, a 
smaller
access
technology company known primarily for its rival screen-reading 
software,
Window-Eyes.
The Freedom Scientific lawsuit alleges that GW Micro has "willfully
infringed" and
has "induced" others to behave similarly with respect to its U.S. Patent 
No.
6,993,707,
issued on January 31, 2006, for a "Document Placeholder" by "making,
importing, selling,
offering to sell and/or using within the United States computer software
covered
by this patent." The case was filed in the United States District Court,
Middle District
of Florida.
As background, the Document Placeholder technology in question is the
feature in
both JAWS and Window-Eyes that allows a user to identify a particular 
place
or bit
of content on a Website and return to this same point on the Webpage 
(using
a few
simple key strokes) repeatedly while originally viewing the page or 
during
subsequent
visits. This technology is designed to make large and cluttered Websites
more convenient
and accessible for blind computer users.
Both Dan Weirich and Doug Geoffray, the two principal executives at GW
Micro, agreed
to be interviewed for this article on the condition that their attorney 
be
present
to offer them legal counsel during the exchange. Mr. Weirich began by
insisting that
GW Micro is not guilty of violating Freedom Scientific's document
placeholder method
patent. While the GW Micro answer filed in response to the lawsuit on
September 29,
2008, denies the allegations of willful patent infringement and contains 
six
legal
affirmative defenses in response to the Freedom Scientific claims, we 
will
focus
here on the basic arguments that most blind computer users will 
understand.
First, GW Micro questions the very legitimacy of the document 
placeholder
patent.
Weirich told the Braille Monitor
that this technology--albeit in a more primitive form--has existed and 
been
used
by various access technology companies since 1999, well before Freedom
Scientific
acquired its patent in January 2006. In their answer GW Micro suggests 
that
Freedom
Scientific may have misled the government in applying for this patent by
alleging
that this technology was new and innovative, when in fact some version 
of it
had
existed for almost seven years before the patent was issued. In the 
first GW
Micro
public statement about this lawsuit, issued on August 15, 2008, Weirich
said, "As
many of our users know, our screen reader--Window-Eyes--has had the
capability of
returning to a specific line within a Webpage since version 3.1, which 
was
released
over nine years ago, well before Freedom Scientific's alleged 
invention."
Weirich
went on to note, "The implication in a recent Freedom Scientific press
release that
GW Micro is benefiting from Freedom Scientific's investment at no charge 
is
simply
not accurate nor in line with GW Micro's tradition of success and fair
play."
Second, both Weirich and Geoffray point out that the method, design, and
functionality
of GW Micro's document placeholder feature are quite different from 
those in
Freedom
Scientific's JAWS product. According to Weirich, the technology that
Window-Eyes
relies on will allow the user of this screen-reading software to return 
to
his or
her place even on a constantly changing Webpage; GW Micro officials 
explain
that
the Freedom Scientific version of this technology relies on counting 
lines
on a Webpage
and may not be able to return to a specific location on a Webpage that 
is
often updated.
Further, Weirich and Geoffray emphasize that their version of the 
document
placeholder
technology has nothing to do with HTML tags; instead they rely solely on
Windows
MSAA tags to make their version of this technology function.
More important than GW Micro's technical legal defenses may be the sense 
of
inequitable
treatment to which Weirich and Geoffray feel they have been subjected. 
In
discussing
the basis and motivation for the lawsuit, Weirich said: "Both Doug and I
have worked
in the blindness access-technology field for over twenty years; GW Micro 
has
been
in business since 1990, and we had both worked for other companies 
before
our time
here. Throughout these years it has always been customary for
access-technology companies
to innovate and develop much of the same functionality in our blindness
products.
When returning from a tradeshow in July, I arrived to learn of the 
lawsuit.
We had
no preliminary discussions with Freedom Scientific about its 
concerns--no
discussions,
no warnings, no courtesy calls asking us to stop use of the technology, 
no
indication
at all was ever received from Freedom Scientific about this issue until 
the
lawsuit
arrived on our doorstep. I just had a neighbor share the news with me 
that a
tree
on the border of our property was dead. Similarly, I would have expected 
in
a small
market like the blindness access technology community that some 
collegial
exchanges
might have occurred before moving directly to litigation." Weirich went 
on
to say,
"One of the things about this lawsuit that troubles me so much is that 
we
are all
compelled to spend precious resources--precious resources that largely 
come
from
rehabilitation and other government funds--on this lawsuit. We at GW 
Micro
would
rather spend these resources on product development or other projects 
that
will directly
benefit our consumers."
When we asked Weirich and Geoffray what they thought had really 
motivated
this lawsuit,
they were both at a loss to give a definite answer. Weirich speculated 
that
perhaps
GW Micro's increasing success and market share in the screen-reader
competition may
have proved threatening to officials at Freedom Scientific. Weirich 
added
that he
knows nothing about Freedom Scientific's finances, but he suggested by
implication
that perhaps troubles on this score may have motivated the lawsuit.
In closing, Weirich asked that the Braille Monitor
report that "GW Micro is not going anywhere. We plan to stick around and
provide
quality services and products to our customer base. This lawsuit is just 
a
bump in
the road. This legal action will not prevent us from making further
enhancements
to Window-Eyes."
Lee Hamilton, president and chief executive officer of Freedom 
Scientific,
declined
the Braille Monitor's
repeated requests to be interviewed for this article. We even offered to
conduct
Hamilton's interview in the presence of Freedom Scientific's attorneys, 
but
this
did not sway his decision. In a December 19 email response to our 
interview
request,
Hamilton offered the following:
Thank you for the invitation, which I received on Tuesday of this week, 
to
contribute
our perspective to your forthcoming article. As you can appreciate, it 
was
necessary
to seek advice from our legal counsel before responding, and I have only
just received
that advice.
As you are aware, when it was clear that this issue might become a 
matter of
public
interest, we published a press release outlining our need to protect our
investment
in research and development for the benefit of our shareholders and
customers. I
understand you have a copy of that press release. Our legal counsel has
advised that
it would be imprudent for us to comment further at this time. It is my
belief that
our press release provides a clear summary of our reasons for taking the
action we
have, and this should be useful in balancing your article.
As you will no doubt be aware, we have a close and highly valuable 
working
relationship
with the NFB. This is manifested in our regular meetings with the
International Braille
and Technology Center and our active participation at NFB state and 
national
conventions.
We value the NFB's role and function highly. Please be assured that we 
are
not offering
any further comment to any media on this matter at this time; in no way 
is
this a
refusal to speak specifically to an NFB publication on the matter.
In the absence of any further comment from Freedom Scientific about its
lawsuit,
we reprint the press release that it offered when the action was first
announced.
Here it is:
Freedom Scientific Files Patent Infringement Suit
(St. Petersburg, Florida - July 24, 2008) Freedom Scientific has taken 
steps
to protect
one of its patented technologies by filing suit against GW Micro, Inc.,
according
to Dr. Lee Hamilton, president and CEO of Freedom Scientific.
"Freedom Scientific invests more in research and development than any 
other
company
in the blindness technology industry," said Dr. Hamilton. "We have a
talented, experienced
team of developers and testers, many of whom are blind themselves. They
develop innovative
solutions to the access issues faced by those with vision impairments 
and
then turn
those ideas into products that make a difference. Along the way, Freedom
Scientific
files patents to protect the investment it makes in developing new
technologies."
Freedom Scientific follows the standard business practice of filing 
patents
for good
reason. Not filing for and then enforcing patents would stifle 
innovation.
If Freedom
invests resources into developing new technologies only to find that 
other
companies
can benefit from our investment at no charge to them, then there would 
be no
incentive
to invest. Those with vision impairments would be the poorer for that in
terms of
independence and employability.
This practice is by no means new in this industry. Freedom Scientific 
itself
already
pays for the use of patented technologies pertaining specifically to
assistive technology.
There you have the press release. At present this lawsuit remains at the
preliminary
stages of litigation. The parties have not yet even commenced discovery.
Motions
from both parties have been filed in a battle to determine the federal 
venue
in which
this case will be tried. GW Micro would like the case moved to the 
federal
district
court in Indiana; Freedom Scientific continues to urge that the case be
tried in
the federal courts in Florida.
We will report further developments in this case as they emerge. In the
meanwhile
it will be for consumers to draw their own inferences and conclusions 
about
the ethical
and legal positions that Freedom Scientific and GW Micro have espoused 
and
adopted
in this case. Is GW Micro being subject to legal bullying tactics from a
larger and
more powerful player in the blindness access-technology field? Is 
Freedom
Scientific
genuinely working to champion the cause of creativity and innovation for 
the
long-term
benefit of blind consumers by suing its primary competitor in the
screen-reading
software industry for infringement of its patents? Only time will tell.
End Article

Regards Steve
Email:  srp at internode.on.net
Windows Live Messenger:  internetuser383 at hotmail.com
Skype:  steve1963 


_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
gui-talk:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/gui-talk_nfbnet.org/geodom%40optonline
.net
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
gui-talk:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/gui-talk_nfbnet.org/albertgriffith%40s
bcglobal.net