SmackLT: And this is the problem. I'm still not seeing much in the way of legislative solutions. Patent trolls are getting rich one small business at a time.

Kind if like Wal-Mart. Patent trolls such as bad a pedophiles and we should deal with them both in the same way: remove that 20 lbs of ugly fat located just north of the neck.

RexTalionis: downstairs: B. That's my point. That's all the legal protection you should be afforded. I shouldn't be able to essentially copy MS Word's functionality, down to the buttons and icons and sell it.

Also, copyright also covers similarity. Like how Ray Parker Jr. got sued for infringement for having a similar song to Huey Lewis (Ghostbusters, I Want a New Drug).

As I said, that's only for "the most part", substantial similarity (not just regular similarity) is still a type of copying and is usually considered in conjunction with the amount of access the alleged infringer had to the product in question.

Obviously some software patents are way too overly broad (Amazon's One-Click, for instance). However, blacklisting software patents entirely also means you're preventing a guy from patenting a, say, a novel type of network analyzer as well as the guy with the broad UI patent.

But the guy with the novel network analyzer has a product to sell. He doesn't have to give away his secret to sell it. Patents do nothing for him.

Marcus Aurelius: Why can't we institute the death penalty for anyone issuing a patent for prior art? It would force the patent office to actually do their job for a change.

I think I found the problem

downstairs: I can open a BBQ joint, but I can't steal another BBQ's spice/sauce recipes word-for-work, ingredient-for-ingredient.

I used to work with an idiot who was planning on patenting a 50/50 mixture of Hot and Three-Mile-Island Sauces from Hooters. Just take the sauces from Hooters and mix them together. Then patent it.

How come no one mentioned this yet:

"This also serves as a reminder to Fark.com's recent settlement with a patent troll (for $0). Fark founder Drew Curtis wrote a great blog post on the whole ordeal, entitled: "Patent-infringement lawsuit against Fark settled for zero dollars. Also, patent trolls suck hairy donkey balls."

basemetal: They will be the second against the wall........

That one looks Jewish!

Our company was recently sued by one of these guys, judge tossed the case just based on the suing companies "support" documents.

RexTalionis:
Obviously some software patents are way too overly broad (Amazon's One-Click, for instance). However, blacklisting software patents entirely also means you're preventing a guy from patenting a, say, a novel type of network analyzer as well as the guy with the broad UI patent.

Bezos doesn't even like software patents. He's on record stating that he'd happily give up the one-click IP for massive restriction or outright banning of software patents.

The Record (new window)

FTFA

Levy: Some years ago, there was some controversy when Amazon got a patent for its 1-Click shopping. Now, technology patents are so widespread that they're seen as a real hindrance to creativity and innovation. Has your thinking changed?

Bezos: For many years, I have thought that software patents should either be eliminated or dramatically shortened. It's impossible to measure the toll they've had on the software industry, but on balance, it has been negative.

Levy: But without software patents, you wouldn't have exclusive rights to 1-Click shopping.

Bezos: If that were the price of having a dramatic reduction in software patents, it would be great.

Whatever happened to that little rule that you couldn't obtain a patent if the idea proved not to be revolutionary or all that original? Aren't there something like 5,000 patent applications for photo sharing software alone?

DammitIForgotMyLogin: No doubt an actual lawyer will come along and explain why this is a bad idea, but why not just make patents non-transferable?

No more patent trolls ...

Because then things would get really, really complicated when you have stuff like one corporation buy another or even something as simple as an inventor working for a company. Also occasionally someone will come up with something they can't bring to market themselves and may just decide to sell it for guaranteed money instead of licensing it on a year to year basis and run the risk of it not panning out.

A better solution would be to remove the possibility of a non-practicing entity from getting an injunction blocking the accused from making the supposedly patented product. The reason these companies win settlements is they can realistically shut down an entire business (if it depends on one type of product) before the case even really goes to trial.

There is no perfect solution. If you make the system unable to be gamed then you will have many real inventors screwed as a consequence because they fell into a category you tweaked via a technicality (which any competent defense would exploit as much as possible). However if there is any way to game the system at all then people will invariably screw other people in the name of greed and those screwed will most likely be those without the big bucks to defend themselves.

DammitIForgotMyLogin: No doubt an actual lawyer will come along and explain why this is a bad idea, but why not just make patents non-transferable?

No more patent trolls ...

I'd like that except when the patented code or item is in current use with an actual business use. But since lawyers are huge lobbyi$t$ limiting them is unlikely anytime soon.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patent s-attack

Read/listen to this. This is important.

You call those things "Legal Thieves". They can file all they want, cause all the problems they feel causing, and no matter whether they're right or wrong, you'll waste time and money in the end. At worst, they'll take what's supposed to be yours in the first place.

I hope these Legal Thieves get patent trolled themselves. "Hey, I'm the ORIGINAL, ONE AND ONLY Patent Troll! This is my lifestyle, you are ruining it for me! Pay up or go to jail!"

RexTalionis: Obviously some software patents are way too overly broad (Amazon's One-Click, for instance).

What's broad about it? It's survived re-examination with everything the FSF could throw at it.

Kahabut: RexTalionis: downstairs: B. That's my point. That's all the legal protection you should be afforded. I shouldn't be able to essentially copy MS Word's functionality, down to the buttons and icons and sell it.

Also, copyright also covers similarity. Like how Ray Parker Jr. got sued for infringement for having a similar song to Huey Lewis (Ghostbusters, I Want a New Drug).

As I said, that's only for "the most part", substantial similarity (not just regular similarity) is still a type of copying and is usually considered in conjunction with the amount of access the alleged infringer had to the product in question.

Obviously some software patents are way too overly broad (Amazon's One-Click, for instance). However, blacklisting software patents entirely also means you're preventing a guy from patenting a, say, a novel type of network analyzer as well as the guy with the broad UI patent.

But the guy with the novel network analyzer has a product to sell. He doesn't have to give away his secret to sell it. Patents do nothing for him.

On the very first sale, the buyer (e.g. competitor's agent) will take it apart and figure out how it works, and then will make more for a few dollars less since he doesn't have R&D costs to recoup. Patents are the only protection the seller has, if he wants to sell product.

I'm currently filing a patent on the procedure by which a company files a patent for a product that they don't own, didn't come up with and don't manufacture, and then sue other companies for implementing the patent that was created.

I'm also filing a patent on filing patents, and I'm hoping it will entitle me to the ownership of all patents.

I'm suing everyone retroactively. Suck my nuts.

Sounds like the apocryphal stories of clean energy technology patents being bought by Big Oil, who just sits on them, waiting to sue anyone out of existence who dares to come up with or manufacture anything similar.

DammitIForgotMyLogin: No doubt an actual lawyer will come along and explain why this is a bad idea, but why not just make patents non-transferable?

No more patent trolls ...

I am certainly no lawyer, but I certainly see no problems with this.

The whole concept of patents, from a Constitutional Law (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8) perspective is that they are to give the creator of the invention exclusive rights to it for a finite amount of time: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

So, if you invent it, you can get exclusive rights to it. Didn't invent it and were just the first to file a patent on something already out there to wield it against the actual creator, or bought patents just to use as legal weapons: STFU and Go To Hell.

I write software for a living, and I have written some pieces of software that has "revolutionized" they way my company did business. (we went from 2 months for processing down to a few minutes) You know what? It wasn't that freaking unique. Software by DESIGN only builds on top of existing technologies. Anything new that comes out is just the same old functionality molded in new light, even those things seen as truly "new", true out of the box, no prior basis, start from scratch creations just dont happen, not with the way progress moves right now. These cursed patent lawsuits only serve to assist NPE's and no one else.

Examples? Google didn't write the first search engine, they just wrote a clean one with more accurate results. They weren't the only one using links to help weight their results, they just did it better.

Amazon's one click isn't the first "click once to do everything" creation, other companies have been doing similar for documents and such long before. Amazon was just the first to say, lets apply that to business.

These micro step patents just drag down the whole freaking industry.

DammitIForgotMyLogin: No doubt an actual lawyer will come along and explain why this is a bad idea, but why not just make patents non-transferable?

No more patent trolls ...

There are laws on the books against issuing legal settlements without intention of actually going to court just for the sake of making money. But they are rarely enforced as the prime offenders they would have to go after would be the RIAA, MPAA, U.S Copyright Group, and all the rest of the "good trolls" who everyone seems to bend over backwards to.

Until we get serious about these spam suits, there will be patent trolls. They are using the exact same legal framework

RexTalionis: Imagine being a little guy with a great big invention that you can't sell or license. Not only don't you have the ability to put it in the market, you also can't even recoupe the very expensive cost of patent prosecution.

Gee, there'd be NO WAY to build your product! Aside, of course, from convincing somebody with money to invest in your invention for a reasonable percentage of the profits.

as a patent troll I'm getting a kick out of these replies. ®

/can't believe I'm the first to say this.

They really are the new scum of the internet

So, I've got a (potentially stupid) question/idea for all the Fark Lawyers® out there. What would happen if someone created a user-submitted content site that did nothing but compile every "wow, this is a cool idea," concept someone had, but didn't feel like or didn't have the means to produce. Could such a thing be used as prior art in legal battles? Not filing any claim of its own, simply throwing the ideas out into the public space as quickly as possible, such that someone in a defending position might be able to cite it?

Sort of no-patent trolling, except without having to, itself, engage in any sort of litigation to achieve its means. Am I missing some painfully obvious flaw? Thoughts?

the us patent law has become a tool for big companies with big law firms to stifle innovation. This entire sector of law needs to be reformed...

I would be amenable to a split-the-difference type of settlement. You can have a software patent on anything unique and non-obvious, but it will only last four years. 15 years is several lifetimes in the software industry and is far too long for a patent to last.

Patents only exist to stifle innovation. Software patents are some of the worst, but it isn't limited to software, and it isn't new.

Henry Ford had a well known patent case. The guy who owned the patent wasn't making cars, but everyone except Ford who made cars at that time paid the patent holder. Ford refused. After a long argument in court, the judge demanded that a car be built to the specifications in the patent. That car wouldn't run, and Ford won the case.

http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarsseldona.htm

I'm glad I got a re-laugh about the "jack sh*t and go f*ck yourself", thanks for reminding me.

pedobearapproved: as a patent troll I'm getting a kick out of these replies. ®

/can't believe I'm the first to say this.

Yeah, well we'll see just how smug you are after being hammered by my crack legal team for infringing upon my patent: "a snarky or smart-ass comment posted to an online forum".

The obvious solutions are to stop infringing on existing patents and to challenge said patents prior to embarking on an enterprise which relies on technology them. If these startups weren't so stupid, they'd do their homework before trying to make a better mousetrap with a hinge that somebody already holds the patent for.

Too bad. Get your own ideas or pay for the ones you use. These same idiots would have no qualms about getting all butthurt if somebody violated THEIR patents. It's only when somebody else holds the patent and it's something THEY want or need when it's ok to moan and whine about it.

Someone asked me once during my own Fark trolling why I was such a bitter man.

In all seriousness the real reason is that my entire life's work and fortune was bled away by these parasites masquerading as legit businesses with the government's OK.

They produce nothing and sue for everything.

Glad these guys are fighting this bullshiat. Me? I will never produce anything for humanity again. You all can go fark yourselves, provided some guy claiming to have a patent on farking doesn't sue your balls off first.

I've got an idea. What if the loser in the court cases had to pay for 100% of the winner's legal costs? That way people would go to court, beat the trolls and make them pay whatever it cost them.