If you are considering becoming a 1M/1M premium member and would like to join our mailing list to receive ongoing information, please sign up here.

Subscribe to our Feed

More on the LOCM Patent Situation

Posted on Friday, Aug 3rd 2007

Here’s a must-read analysis of the patent by Marty Himmelstein, formerly from Vicinity.

Marty also wrote to me privately: “Hi Sramana – I read your post on today. As I tried to make the case in my post, the patent is fatally flawed. First, the copious prior art makes the patent irrelevant. I just don’t see how the patent could possibly survive that hurdle. Yahoo! has had a geographic search capability on their site since before Google. So, as I point out in my post, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft have nothing to gain by acquiring I don’t think there is much room for to maneuver here: that the prior art pertains directly to’s patent is obvious; it is plentiful, and it is better. I don’t think the patent should have been granted in the first place.”

Google, by buying, wouldn’t be blocking anybody out of this multi-billion dollar market, because there are other doors that actually work. It reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles, where to slow their pursuers down, the good-guys put a toll-booth in the middle of the desert. And the bandits, none too bright, queue up in line. It won’t work this way. Best, Marty Himmelstein”

I also asked a very experienced lawyer, who won a massive patent suit against Microsoft for a rather simplistic invention for which his client had a patent. His response is as follows: “Before your email I had not heard of this company or its patent. I’ve done a little research and it appears to be another situation where a small company has gotten a software related patent and lots of bloggers are screaming about the patent system being broken etc; and others claiming it is invalid because of a lot of prior art. In my opinion there are not too many patent cases these days where weak patents are asserted successfully. If the patent is truly a weak one, it usually does not survive litigation.”

I guess, will sit around for a while waiting to be acquired by Google, Yahoo, etc. Those companies will do their due diligence, consult patent lawyers and try to gauge whether the patent is defensible. If the answer is no, and Marty says, that the answer will be no, there would be no acquisition offer.

Now, what all this tells me, is that while LOCM’s patent has created the hue and cry, it may be worth looking in the prior (and later) art to see what patents in the local search arena do have merit and are defensible. If Google and Yahoo are looking at Intellectual Property and litigation as a strategy, then that, perhaps, would be a worthwhile exercise to orchestrate.

As for the LOCM stock, it has enjoyed a nice speculative run. I will stop at saying this, that it is an unbelievably risky thing to do – playing with this company as an investment.

Hacker News
() Comments

Featured Videos


For any insomnia sufferers, you can start looking into a list of prior art cited in our patent number 6,611,751 on the USPTO web site – our lawyers found 50 related prior patents in our classe(s).

Cal McElroy Friday, August 3, 2007 at 12:52 PM PT

[…] companies: Navteq, TomTom, TeleAtlas, Garmin. You may also want to look up a company called Local is also a big part of IAC’s […]

Web 3.0 = (4C + P + VS) + Place - Sramana Mitra on Strategy Friday, September 7, 2007 at 5:16 AM PT