-Updated 12-13-10- Physorg is reporting that a U.S. district judge tossed out the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Interval Licensing owned by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen.  The judge ruled that the suit failed to specify devices or products violating patents at issue in the case. A spokesman for Allen dismissed the ruling as a procedural matter and said that an amended complaint will be filed addressing the judge’s concern.

-Updated- Google responded to the suit by stating in court documents  “Interval’s complaint is so devoid of any facts to support its infringement contentions that it is impossible for Google to reasonably prepare a defense.” According to VON | xchange Apple agreed, and called on judges to “insist upon some specificity” before proceeding.

The UK’s Guardian is reporting that eleven major Internet companies including AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo and YouTube are being sued by Interval Licensing.The firm, lead by ex-Microsoft founder Paul Allen is suing for alleged infringement of  patents which relate to e-commerce and search. A copy of the complaint is available here (PDF). Notably absent from the list are Microsoft and Amazon.com. Amazon, the Seattle e-commerce giant just moved into a new headquarters campus developed by Allen’s Vulcan Inc. Interval is seeking damages and the end of the infringement. Among the patents being contested are

• 6,263,507:”Browser for use in navigating a body of information, with particular  application to browsing information represented by audio data.”
• 6,034,652 & 6,788,314 (really the same patent, involving continuations): “Attention manager for occupying the peripheral attention of a person in the vicinity of a display device”
• 6,757,682: “Alerting users to items of current interest”
• TechFlash has a deeper analysis of these patents

Google and Facebook told the Guardian they will fight the accusations by Interval. “This lawsuit against some of America’s most  innovative companies reflects an unfortunate trend of people trying to compete in the courtroom instead of the marketplace,” a Google spokesperson said in an emailed statement to the Guardian. “Innovation – not litigation – is the way to bring to market the kinds of products and services that benefit  millions of people around the world.” Facebook spokesperson Andrew Noyes  said: “We believe this suit is completely without merit and we will fight it vigorously.”

The Guardian reports that these claims have led to accusations by some observers that Allen, who is worth a reported $13.5bn is acting as a “patent troll” – suing active companies via patents obtained by now-defunct or inactive companies which are not actively developing technology.  However David Postman, an Interval official, defended the lawsuit as necessary to protect its investment in innovation.”We are not asserting patents that other companies have filed, nor are we buying patents originally assigned to someone else,” he told the Guardian. “These are patents developed by and for Interval.” Allen is not a named inventor on any of the patents according to Bloomberg.

Allen co-founded Interval Research in 1992 to develop communications and computer technology. The firm was reportedly designed to be a pure research institute “done right” which would replicate Xerox PARC, but that it would actually commercialize the amazing ideas. At its largest it employed more than 110 scientists and engineers, and filed patents covering internet search and display innovations, according to the lawsuit. Interval Research officially closed in April 2000 when its 300+ patents were taken over by Interval Licensing.

Apparently Allen has support from another tech founder. TechDirt reports that Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak comes out in favor of “patent trolls” and patent holders suing companies who actually innovate. Woz told Bloomberg TV that patents somehow help out the small guy (Paul Allen, the 37th-richest person in the world?):

I think this lawsuit represents the idea that hey, patents, individual inventors, they don’t have the funds to go up against big companies. So he’s sorta representing some original investors. And I’m not at all against the idea of patent trolls.

The Bloomberg interviewer points out that Paul Allen is not the inventor and there’s no sign that the inventors on these patents would actually get any of the money should Allen succeed. Woz says that Allen “represents inventors.” According to TechDirt Woz seems uninformed about the patent world today. For example, the interviewer notes that dealing with patents has become a “cost of doing business” and Woz seems to think that’s a good thing:

Every tech company is very aware that patents are really the heart of our innovation and invention system and (a) that you have to have your own patent position and you gotta be aware that there might be others. And, yes, you might be infringing. It’s very awkward, because some patents are so general. It’s hard to say how they’ll be interpreted. There’s a lot of ambiguity in the system.

TechDirt notes the irony that  in Woz’s autobiography iWoz, he talked about how much of a success Apple was without relying patents at the beginning.

Patents on software and business processes have become a lighting rod issue for web companies. They claim that patents act as a financial drag on innovation and that the US Patent Office (USPTO) is especially poor at examining patent claims for “prior art” which would disqualify them, or that it awards patents on needlessly wide claims which mean that it is almost impossible for companies to use accepted web technologies without accidentally infringing on them.

One of the most notable was Amazon’s 1997 patent for its “1-Click” shopping system, which was, accepted and then rejected and finally passed by the USPTO  in March 2010. Amazon has licensed the technology to Apple, among others. Other infamous software patent abuses include:

• British Telecom attempted to claim a patent on the hyperlink; its claim collapsed in 2002 on the basis that the patent referred to a “central computer” – which the internet does not have.
• SCO sued IBM, Red Hat, Novell. AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler for claimed patents rights that would cover significant parts of the free Linux operating system.