From the ManyTricks blog:
> Tonight we received notice that Moom is in violation of US patent number 8434019, Apparatus and method for positioning windows on a display. Yes, someone has patented positioning windows on a screen via a grid. Given we’ve been notified of a patent violation, we have no choice but to remove Moom from sale, effective immediately. > > Honestly, we have no idea how to proceed here—the notice arrived at 8pm on a Friday evening, meaning it will be a few days until we can even speak to an attorney about our options, if any. We’re not a big company by any stretch, and certainly don’t have the resources for a patent fight.
Moom is an awesome Mac window management tool that pops up when you roll over a window’s green zoom button. Here’s a link to the Moom product page.
I get the necessity, the importance of the patent system. But there should be some sort of accommodation for situations like this, a low cost review process that includes a grace period so a product can still be sold for, say, 30 days, without harm, while the patent is reviewed by someone at the patent office and a ruling is made to either grant an exception to the patent or to approve the takedown notice. Companies hire a patent attorney to help them secure their intellectual property rights.
Google recently started a program, called PatentShield (we wrote about it a few weeks ago) that allowed a company to use Google-held patents as a countermeasure to a takedown notice like this.
Another possible path would be to create a revenue threshold level. In other words, if you bring in less than, say, $100K from an invention, you could pay a percentage to a fund and not be subject to takedown notices for anything less than egregious violation (direct copying of a protected product, for example). The fund would be used to fund some form of review process.
None of these are the answer. But to me, the existing patent system has to evolve, especially when it stifles innovation, the opposite of its intended purpose.
[H/T Craig Grannell]