Spring Design sues Barnes & Noble over the Nook

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

They're not suing based on a patent though. I don't know if Spring Design even has a patent, it isn't mentioned in the article and doesn't seem to be relevant (unless there is more going on under the covers).

Same exact thing happened to Gene Roddenberry. He pitched the Star Trek idea to CBS first. They picked his brains for several hours about how he could make something on such a small budget. He answered all their questions and they said no thanks and goodbye. They then came out with Lost In Space using many of the filming and set aspect that Roddenberry had told them he was going to use for Trek.

Roddenbury didn't sue them... he couldn't have. He just went on to product a World Wide phenomenon that has spanned 5 TV series and 10 movies.

BOb

[pilotbob]

Engadget has some more info about this:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/03/s...-and-crannies/

i wonder thought... B&N didn't disclose anything about the Sprint Design device to anyone... from what I can see. It was not a non-compete agreement right?

BOb

[Faenad]

Originally Posted by dmikov

What a horrible horrible business practices. They don't even have a leg to stand on, just hoping for a settlement.

yes, screw all small companies and small start-up! How dare they sue such a big corporation as B&N anyway?

Joke aside, why being so fast in reaching conclusions? I really wonder why there is so much hype about B&N and the nook, after all the device is not yet released and nobody except B&N have been able to use it. It can still be a lame horse.

Now B&N just have to prove that they were already developing a dual-screen reader prior to being showed the Spring dual-screen Reader under a NDA. If they are in their right it should be easy enough.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Faenad

Now B&N just have to prove that they were already developing a dual-screen reader prior to being showed the Spring dual-screen Reader under a NDA. If they are in their right it should be easy enough.

Why? NDA means "Non Disclosure Agreement". If they didn't disclose Spring Design's plans to anybody then they didn't violate the NDA.

BOb

[Faenad]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Why? NDA means "Non Disclosure Agreement". If they didn't disclose Spring Design's plans to anybody then they didn't violate the NDA.

BOb

From the NDA :

"In maintaining confidentiality hereunder, each party shall not , without obtaining the written consent of the other, disclose or make available to any person, firm or enterprise, reproduce or transmit, or use (directly or indirectly) for its own benefit or the benefit of others, any such Confidential Information."

http://www.engadget.com/photos/sprin...its-3/2418638/

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by Faenad

yes, screw all small companies and small start-up! How dare they sue such a big corporation as B&N anyway?

Joke aside, why being so fast in reaching conclusions? I really wonder why there is so much hype about B&N and the nook, after all the device is not yet released and nobody except B&N have been able to use it. It can still be a lame horse.

Now B&N just have to prove that they were already developing a dual-screen reader prior to being showed the Spring dual-screen Reader under a NDA. If they are in their right it should be easy enough.

No don't screw the small companies. I might be wrong here, but their announcement of their reader next day after B&N announced theirs with a shipping date (i.e. They have a product) and the 3 year startup doesn't. Well that just looked fishy. Plus if you read their first post the phrase patented dual screen technology, just screamed lawsuit 2 weeks ago.
Reading the materials, well android based, that was discussed here for months and only can openers are not coming with android in the next year. And they also disclosed that the e-reader will have cover and now appalled that nook will have cover too... Really?
They might be the small underdog abused by big bully B&N, yeah I give it one chance in ten.

[EatingPie]

My personal feelings are that the Nook looks good and Alex doesn't. So I'm hoping B&N did not play dirty pool. But, ultimately I hope justice is done... money will likely be paid if it's a stolen concept.

However, didn't someone else build the Nook for B&N? Some completely different company?

-Pie

[Faenad]

Originally Posted by dmikov

I might be wrong here, but their announcement of their reader next day after B&N announced theirs with a shipping date (i.e. They have a product) and the 3 year startup doesn't. Well that just looked fishy.

Well, my personal feeling is that the whole dual-screen thingie is lame.

But I don't think that Spring just cooked a device in a few days just to sue B&N. If the NDA agreement & the Powerpoint slide they distributed today are true, they were already working on it early 2009. I don't think they would be stupid enough to attack B&N with forged documents, but we will know soon enough.

And if their story is true, they must have been badly surprised when B&N announced the nook, and henceforth announcing their own device was a logical step if they were gonna try to protect their IP.

Also, as of today, the two devices are at the exact same point : Both are unreleased, and both were only demoed in the hands of their respective companies officials.

[nikkie]

While the alex may not *look* as nice as the nook, if you check out the videos of it up on youtube it quickly becomes clear that the alex is much more developed than the nook is.



Some of the features the alex has, that the nook doesn't:
* web browser in the bottom screen, with print to eink screen
* access to the android marketplace
* ability to add word docs and other formats that nook doesn't support except through conversion
* ability to download epubs from the internet (for example google books!)
* far more advanced navigation screen

I am definitely inclined to believe that the alex came first and B&N ripped them off, because they did such a shitty job in comparison. The alex's features are WAY better.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Engadget has some more info about this:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/03/s...-and-crannies/

i wonder thought... B&N didn't disclose anything about the Sprint Design device to anyone... from what I can see. It was not a non-compete agreement right?

BOb

There's a clause in there that specifically states neither party can use (directly or indirectly) for it's own benefit or the benefit of others, any such confidential information.

It's not a blanket non-compete. But it does say that neither is allowed to use information that they learned under the NDA without permission.

[sircastor]

Originally Posted by nikkie

While the alex may not *look* as nice as the nook, if you check out the videos of it up on youtube it quickly becomes clear that the alex is much more developed than the nook is.

Some of the features the alex has, that the nook doesn't:
* web browser in the bottom screen, with print to eink screen
* access to the android marketplace
* ability to add word docs and other formats that nook doesn't support except through conversion
* ability to download epubs from the internet (for example google books!)
* far more advanced navigation screen

I am definitely inclined to believe that the alex came first and B&N ripped them off, because they did such a shitty job in comparison. The alex's features are WAY better.

This is a matter of perspective. While it's clear that Alex is capable of quite a bit more, it's also clear that B&N's goal with the nook was not to be a direct competitor to the Alex. The Alex is a more sophisticated device. Looking at the two, I think the Alex is far more than an ereader, whereas the nook is really just an ereader. The devices are in different classes, and when it comes down to it, the most they have in common is two screens and Android. The nook isn't less of a device because it's a rushed ripoff. It's different because it was intended to be different.

[nikkie]

Originally Posted by sircastor

The devices are in different classes, and when it comes down to it, the most they have in common is two screens and Android. The nook isn't less of a device because it's a rushed ripoff. It's different because it was intended to be different.

This definitely seems debatable.

I've been hanging around the nook forums a fair bit, and many of the complaints people make revolve around these missing features. It definitely seems like as soon as people get the idea in their head that they can have a dedicated reading device, they want it to do it really well. The ability to get books off the internet quickly and easily, integrate with calibre's bookserver to download books wirelessly that aren't from B&N, and the ability to read rss feeds and blog posts, are things that a lot of people want.

(As a side note, people spoiled by their iPhone and Stanza definitely want the wireless browser ability to download books.)

The other reason why I feel like the nook was rushed are the moderators' responses on the board. They clearly don't know the answers to a lot of basic questions, and this really stinks of the device being inadequately thought out. At the very least, they didn't take the time to educate the people they have talking to customers, in-store or out.

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by dmikov

What a horrible horrible business practices. They don't even have a leg to stand on, just hoping for a settlement.

Do you actually have any facts beyond those in the article you link because it seems to be that its very hasty to claim that they are the ones with horrible business practices rather than B&N, this does not seem like your typical patent troll lawsuit at all.

Also, when an article gets posted on the frontpage, is it usual for it to be so heavily commentary, most of them seem to ensure the first post is much more objective.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I'm pretty sure you can't patent and idea... you can only patent the implementation of an idea. So, I'm pretty sure this will go no where.

BOb

BTW: I am not a patent attorney. (thank god for that).

Agreed.
Cause you got it backwards: patents *are* for ideas.
It is *copyright* that only covers implementation.

And, while the press has made no mention of it, the Alex announcement claims their dual-screen design is under patent. The patent may or not be finalized but it factors into the IP discussion. (And yes, it *is* possible to innocently infringe on a patent. You're still liable. Infringing *after* being informed leads to big awards *if* proven.)

However, claims under an NDA fall under *contract* law and those can get nasty (ask Microsoft over the fine print SUN slipped in on them when they licensed Java).

Finally, note that SD is *not* a troll operation, okay?
They are a small startup with a working product that they showed to B&N under NDA and then found B&A shipping a conceptually identical product.

Not my job to settle the argument here and now (we haven't heard B&N's side) but there is precedent for this situation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Feb25.html
(Search Wikipedia for Robert Kearns for more detailss and links.)
Basically Mr Kearns invented intermitent wipers and got a patent, showed them to the automakers, who refused to license his idea but implemented it their own way afterwards. Took decades but he eventually won. And that was without the internet and mass media to support his case or even a lawyer.

There is meat to this case; it might be paper thin or it might be a mile wide, that is for the courts to decide. But don't assume that cause Nook is cute and white and Alex is black and unwieldy there is no case here; they are *not* suing under trade dress. And they're *not* suing under copyright. So whatever our opinions about copyright, patents and what-not, they are not at issue.

They are suing under an NDA and that is a contract; in contracts there are two sides. How about giving both sides a bit of respect here?

The first test of how strong a case SD has is coming up quick: they asked for an injunction to keep Nook off the market. Let's see what the judge says, huh?

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Agreed.
Cause you got it backwards: patents *are* for ideas.
It is *copyright* that only covers implementation.

No, BOb had it right. Patents are for devices and NOT for ideas.
Copyright applies to written material.