SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Patent-holding company TQP Development made millions claiming that it owned a breakthrough in Web encryption, even though most encryption experts had never heard of the company until it started a massive campaign of lawsuits. Yesterday, the company's litigation campaign was brought to an end when a panel of appeals judges refused (PDF) to give TQP a second chance to collect on a jury verdict against Newegg.
The TQP patent was invented by Michael Jones, whose company Telequip briefly sold a kind of encrypted modem. The company sold about 30 models before the modem business went bust. Famed patent enforcer Erich Spangenberg bought the TQP patent in 2008 and began filing lawsuits, saying that the Jones patent actually entitled him to royalties on a basic form of SSL Internet encryption. Spangenberg and Jones ultimately made more than $45 million from the patent.
TQP appealed its case, and oral arguments were heard at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on February 8. Yesterday, the three-judge panel found in Newegg's favor, issuing a short two-page order that did not explain its reasoning. While TQP could theoretically still appeal to the full Federal Circuit or to the Supreme Court, it's far from clear there's any legal issue in the case that would compel either of those bodies to take the case.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday March 01 2017, @04:30PM (1 child)
You need to hit that space key harder--there is no such word as "downunder". If in fact you thought it was a valid word, you might want to double check a dictionary (one that is non-urban).
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Thursday March 02 2017, @01:11AM
Typo in the summary
When making such a post, it's a good idea to quote the typo in question. If what you point out is in fact an error, and it's corrected, that means that the error will disappear from the summary, leaving your comment as a non-sequitur down below a summary that it doesn't apply to.
there is no such word as "downunder".
Neither the summary nor the original submission contains the word "down," the word "under," or the word "downunder." There's no way to tell what this post is/was referring to.