From the web page
http://www.nfb.org/images/nfb/Publications/bm/bm09/bm0902/bm090206.htm

The Braille Monitor                                                    
February 2009

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.  

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.17/1934 - Release Date: 2/4/2009
8:24 AM
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.17/1934 - Release Date: 2/4/2009
8:24 AM
 


    VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
Archived on the World Wide Web at
    http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
    Signoff: [log in to unmask]
    Subscribe: [log in to unmask]