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

Fri Feb 6 04:21:16 UTC 2009

Exactly. First they sue Serotek, which used to be called freedom box, just 
for using the word freedom in their name? Give me a break. Like I said, the 
best way to voice your disapproval is to hit them where it hurts, and that 
is to not buy their products, there are definitely other screen readers out 
there, and they beat Jaws any day.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "GEORGE AND PAMELA DOMINGUEZ" <geodom at optonline.net>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 4:16 PM
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/n0oxy%40charter.net