If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TED)   Drew's TED talk is up - How I Beat a Patent Troll   (ted.com) divider line 335
    More: PSA, TED Talks, Drew Curtis  
•       •       •

18741 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Apr 2012 at 2:40 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



335 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-17 03:57:18 PM
Wonder if this is a typical case, or if Drew was "lucky" to encounter a somewhat incompetent patent troll. Seems like it easily could have been far worse.
 
2012-04-17 03:57:37 PM
Patent troll is not amused:

Mouhamad A. Naboulsi
Less than 5 minutes ago: It is very apparent that the speaker lives in the present and has no vision. Yes, sending news via e-mail is trivial "TODAY", but it was not when the patent was filed or issued.

The speaker is old enough to remember the stacks of paper that we had to lug around as late as the turn of the century, so he is being disingenuous by trivializing the vision of the inventors and the value of patent.

I can say with great certainty that he and all those who infringed on the patent, either knew directly of its existence or chose to neglect looking for it, and properly licensing it from the inventor. I can say with great certainty that the inventor must have approached these companies, at one time or another, to license the patent, but with their usual "smug", "dishonest", "bullying" attitude demonstrated here, they may have laughed the guy out the door, if he ever got close to the door in the first place.

Trolls (as this guy calls them) are the great equalizers. If he and others like him where to respect rights of fellow citizens as enshrined by the constitutional mandate, we would not be in the need for trolls.

All in all, the piece is an attack on creative and visionaries who spend blood, sweat, sleepless nights and money to get something out to humanity, while a joker like this guy, think he is smart enough to use these Intellectual Properties, so he is not obligated to pay for it.

I would like to see him treating a song from iTunes or a video copy of a film the same way so he want us to treat patents. He won't, because he will pays $240K per copy and spend sometime in jail.

When my patents are issued, there will not be any settlements. Infringes will pay per copy. Laugh at that F,G,T,N,M,B,M,V,A,C,Z,A. See you guys in courts in Detroit.
 
2012-04-17 03:58:03 PM

Drew: No stick is large enough

 
2012-04-17 03:58:19 PM

Drew: Galloping Galoshes: However Drew beat a patent troll, he didn't do it long enough, hard enough, or with a big enough stick.

No stick is large enough

However if by some miracle I actually get that patent, I'm going nuclear on them


i884.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-17 03:58:46 PM
When I saw TED jump out at me, I thought it was going to be the inevitable thread about that dumbass Nugent.

Please let the Secret Service find his automatic weapons.
 
2012-04-17 03:59:02 PM

DrySocket: Gooseberry is a shell company for Intellectual Ventures, Nathan Myrvholds little "innovation" company.


Link?

DrySocket: Im sure there is a lot more to the story than what was explained in 6 minutes


Me too, hence my boobies.
 
2012-04-17 03:59:57 PM

MrEricSir: Wonder if this is a typical case, or if Drew was "lucky" to encounter a somewhat incompetent patent troll. Seems like it easily could have been far worse.


if you want my guess, I'm going with incompetent.

However if that wasn't the case, I suspect they figured out they weren't getting anything out of Fark and pursing further was going to be a lot of work

One of the things that got left out of the talk may have played a factor too: during discovery the first question was "who are these 10 people and how are they involved in this case" with 10 names.

Then, the troll missed the discovery deadline.

Which meant they couldn't strike the question

If we had any positive hits in there, I suspect it factored in.

The reason we asked would have been obvious to the plaintiff - we were trying to pierce the corporate veil and go after the owners personally
 
2012-04-17 04:01:00 PM
Well stated Mr Curtis.
 
2012-04-17 04:02:49 PM
pic took the xtra 16s ds_4815 ^^ (shakes wee fist)
 
2012-04-17 04:03:17 PM

DrBenway: Patent troll is not amused:

Mouhamad A. Naboulsi
Less than 5 minutes ago: It is very apparent that the speaker lives in the present and has no vision. Yes, sending news via e-mail is trivial "TODAY", but it was not when the patent was filed or issued.

The speaker is old enough to remember the stacks of paper that we had to lug around as late as the turn of the century, so he is being disingenuous by trivializing the vision of the inventors and the value of patent.

I can say with great certainty that he and all those who infringed on the patent, either knew directly of its existence or chose to neglect looking for it, and properly licensing it from the inventor. I can say with great certainty that the inventor must have approached these companies, at one time or another, to license the patent, but with their usual "smug", "dishonest", "bullying" attitude demonstrated here, they may have laughed the guy out the door, if he ever got close to the door in the first place.

Trolls (as this guy calls them) are the great equalizers. If he and others like him where to respect rights of fellow citizens as enshrined by the constitutional mandate, we would not be in the need for trolls.

All in all, the piece is an attack on creative and visionaries who spend blood, sweat, sleepless nights and money to get something out to humanity, while a joker like this guy, think he is smart enough to use these Intellectual Properties, so he is not obligated to pay for it.

I would like to see him treating a song from iTunes or a video copy of a film the same way so he want us to treat patents. He won't, because he will pays $240K per copy and spend sometime in jail.

When my patents are issued, there will not be any settlements. Infringes will pay per copy. Laugh at that F,G,T,N,M,B,M,V,A,C,Z,A. See you guys in courts in Detroit.


Oh, Mouhamad, so the patent troll terrorists win after all?
 
2012-04-17 04:03:40 PM
It's all so obvious. DREW WAS THE PATENT TROLL. Good one, you trolled us good.
 
2012-04-17 04:04:29 PM

DrBenway: Patent troll is not amused:

Mouhamad A. Naboulsi
Less than 5 minutes ago: It is very apparent that the speaker lives in the present and has no vision. Yes, sending news via e-mail is trivial "TODAY", but it was not when the patent was filed or issued.


If they stopped letting retarded people on the Internet it would be empty

That guy's pretty much all wrong. Sending news via email was some kind of innovation in 1999 eh? Right.

Anyhow, I'm not anti-patent, inventors should be protected. When they actually invent something that is
 
2012-04-17 04:04:35 PM

Theaetetus: I present to you patent 6,243,373 (new window) "Method and apparatus for implementing a computer network/Internet telephone system,", which is pretty much 'phone calls, but on the internet'.

Nice paraphrased description. But no, that may be a rough statement of what the patent loosely describes, but it's not what the patent claims, which is:
1. A method of routing a full duplex telephone call between a first telephone set and a second telephone set using a public computer network as at least part of a communication link connecting said first and second telephone sets, comprising the steps of:
receiving at a first computer network access port a first telephone call from a central office placed from said fist telephone set initiating said full duplex telephone call, said first telephone call specifying a telephone number of said second telephone set, without specifying additional telephone destinations;
converting data received from the central office to an Intenet protocol;
establishing a communication link over said public computer network between said first computer network access port and a remote second computer network access port;
placing a second telephone call from said second computer network access port to said second telephone set using a PSTN;
converting data received from the public computer network from Intenet protocol to a PSTN protocol; and
connecting said first telephone call, said communication link and said second telephone call to thereby establish a telephone call between said first telephone set and said second telephone set.

There's more limitations there than just "internet" and "phone call".


Yeah. Limitations like how you have to take the obvious step of actually connecting the phone to the Internet. Which those points verbosely over-describe.

It's funny how patent applications don't describe what they're patenting clearly. It's like patent lawyers deliberately obfuscate.
 
2012-04-17 04:05:12 PM
Relevant to patent troll suits

Nest slams back at Honeywell over thermostat patents (new window)
 
2012-04-17 04:07:37 PM
I think I know why Drew was wearing the purple.

It was a meme reference

images.icanhascheezburger.com

/that or the Heiniken
 
2012-04-17 04:09:08 PM

Drew: Last year at Ted, Matt Cutts and I actually tracked down Myrvholds to ask him if he owned the thing. He didn't know, but he was pretty startled by the question


Man, I bet his expression was great. Or, at least, I am choosing to see it that way.
 
2012-04-17 04:11:01 PM
Super cool. "We love the leader." Oh Fark, fox owns that.
 
2012-04-17 04:12:09 PM

DrBenway: Mouhamad A. Naboulsi


Is that guy serious with this web site?
 
2012-04-17 04:12:20 PM
I'm just glad this case ended the way it did. I sure as hell don't want to have to wait for the postman every day just to read FARK.

/patent trolls stifle innovation
 
2012-04-17 04:13:25 PM

Yuri Futanari: i type wwith m,y p[eenis


I bet it stretches all the way from A to Z.
 
2012-04-17 04:14:08 PM

downstairs: I'm speaking more of software patents. Almost all software is obvious. Success is generally a matter of marketing, critical mass, good management decisions, and luck.

I've been in this industry for 15 years. Rarely have I seen software/web sites that I haven't thought up- in my mind, at least partially- before they were created.


Huh. Well, I have to disagree. I know a lot of very good programmers who come up with new and exciting stuff each day. I'd hate to tell them that they haven't innovated or solved problems and are just doing obvious monkey work.
 
2012-04-17 04:14:47 PM

Drew: Sending news via email was some kind of innovation in 1999 eh? Right.


Isn't that how you started?

You should counter-sue!
 
2012-04-17 04:15:06 PM

Theaetetus: Like that interconnection between a CO and a local PBX quoted above may not have been obvious to someone in 1995 when it was written, even though it may seem obvious to us now in 2012.


Considering prior to 95 they were saying the "information super highway" was supposed to give us video telephones, the idea of using the Internet for regular telephony was pretty obvious in 1995.
 
2012-04-17 04:15:26 PM

ohknaks: Theaetetus: Secondly, the "frivolous" patents you mention at the beginning - phone calls, but on the internet; or radio, but for cell phones - don't actually exis

I present to you patent 6,243,373 (new window) "Method and apparatus for implementing a computer network/Internet telephone system,", which is pretty much 'phone calls, but on the internet'.


The thing is, under the current patent system, the first person to do that (or basically anything else) earns the right to file a patent for it. That's how patents work-that's the whole point of them.
 
2012-04-17 04:15:53 PM
"Mainstream Media"

DRINK!
 
2012-04-17 04:19:05 PM

Geotpf: The thing is, under the current patent system, the first person to do that (or basically anything else) earns the right to file a patent for it. That's how patents work-that's the whole point of them


That's not entirely the case -- you could be the first to do something, but if it's "obvious" under the law (it's somewhat harder to get over that hump since the KSR decision) you still can't get a patent on it.
 
2012-04-17 04:20:24 PM
So, am I the only person who has noticed that, at it's root, Drew's successful strategy in this lawsuit boils down to one simple, universal axiom? It is well known by internet denizens everywhere:

"Don't feed the Trolls."
 
2012-04-17 04:20:26 PM
So.... I'm probably not understanding exactly what constitutes a non-disclosure agreement, but if all these patent cases have them -- how do we know it costs 2 million dollars to fight one?

For that matter, how do we know how much economic damage is wrought if monetary settlements are never provided (due to the NDA)?

As I understand it, Steve Jobs was a bit of a patent freak -- claiming ownership rights to shapes, colors and his morning craps. It does all sound quite stupid, and I'm sorry Drew had to deal with all of it (people suck) -- but I am curious how such specific statistics as Drew mentioned are generated.
 
2012-04-17 04:22:02 PM
"Along the way he shares some nutty statistics about the growing legal problem of frivolous patents"

"nutty statistics"

"nutty"

img.fark.net
 
2012-04-17 04:22:05 PM

Drew: I respectfully disagree


You know, this may actually be the first time those words were posted on Fark.

You should patent those!
 
2012-04-17 04:22:34 PM

Drew: I was never quite clear on what the deal was here. Perhaps you could help explain how it works on the other end. Basically, we didn't infringe on this patent. I realize the courts require evidence of infringement, but apparently they don't up front because the troll didn't provide any. They just said "Fark's infringing and needs to cease immediately" without providing anything else in the complaint.


Yeah, nothing more than an accusation is required up front to file the suit. But similarly, your answer to the complaint requires nothing more than "Fark, Inc. denies the allegations in the complaint, requests a jury trial, and suggests the plaintiff go pound sand." Take a look at Facebook's answer in the Yahoo-Facebook dispute, for example (they went on to counterclaim infringement of 10 of their patents, but the answer in the first half is basically a blanket denial of everything).
The court won't order an injunction, based on the complaint and answer, however. The plaintiff would have to move for summary judgement and the injunction, and at that point, they have to provide sufficient evidence, or the court can tell them to pound sand.

Think of the complaint as being like a criminal indictment... The DA can call you a murderer all they want, but you don't have to respond with anything more than "nuh huh" until they've provided some evidence.
 
2012-04-17 04:23:16 PM

towatchoverme: I just patented fingers.

No more posts in this thread.


Nope, my patent for posting while drinking covers it.
 
2012-04-17 04:23:16 PM

Blink: So.... I'm probably not understanding exactly what constitutes a non-disclosure agreement, but if all these patent cases have them -- how do we know it costs 2 million dollars to fight one?


The NDA comes into play if/when you settle, not when you fight it.
 
2012-04-17 04:23:34 PM
I don't feel like signing up, but will someone please read Mouhamad A. Naboulsi's comment and let him know he's an idiot?
 
2012-04-17 04:27:43 PM
I liked the TEd talk. Don't negotiate with terrorists. Drew is now just like Dirty Harry in my book.
 
2012-04-17 04:27:56 PM

Drew: Thanks! I think the main point of confusion here is that I'm distilling the experience of a patent troll lawsuit, not a normal patent lawsuit


Which is a different type of lawsuit altogether...
 
2012-04-17 04:28:02 PM

GQueue: Geotpf: The thing is, under the current patent system, the first person to do that (or basically anything else) earns the right to file a patent for it. That's how patents work-that's the whole point of them

That's not entirely the case -- you could be the first to do something, but if it's "obvious" under the law (it's somewhat harder to get over that hump since the KSR decision) you still can't get a patent on it.


True, it has to be non-obvious. Now, while the concept of "phone over the internet" might be obvious, all the technical bullshiat to make such a thing work probably is not. (Although if the only way to do an obvious thing is such and such, you probably can't patent that. Maybe.)

Another important thing is is that you have to be the first to do it. Lots of "patent troll" patents are actually invalid (either they are obvious or somebody else did it first), if somebody actually bothered to litigate them. The solution, therefore, is more government spending (IE, to hire more (and better) people (and pay them more) at the patent office to weed out the bad patents before they are even issued). But we can't do that, can we? Government is always part of the problem, it's never part of the solution!
 
2012-04-17 04:28:31 PM

impaler: Theaetetus: Like that interconnection between a CO and a local PBX quoted above may not have been obvious to someone in 1995 when it was written, even though it may seem obvious to us now in 2012.

Considering prior to 95 they were saying the "information super highway" was supposed to give us video telephones, the idea of using the Internet for regular telephony was pretty obvious in 1995.


Oh, I agree, the idea of doing so was pretty obvious. The idea of time travel was pretty obvious to Jules Verne, and the idea of teleportation was pretty obvious to Gene Roddenberry. You couldn't get a patent that just claimed "time travel" or "teleportation" or "using the internet for regular telephony," because those are obvious. The specific implementation (or any implementation, for the first two) may not be obvious at all, however... which is why it took us 20 years to get to VoIP from IP.
 
2012-04-17 04:29:45 PM

Drew: DrBenway: Patent troll is not amused:

Mouhamad A. Naboulsi
Less than 5 minutes ago: It is very apparent that the speaker lives in the present and has no vision. Yes, sending news via e-mail is trivial "TODAY", but it was not when the patent was filed or issued.

If they stopped letting retarded people on the Internet it would be empty

That guy's pretty much all wrong. Sending news via email was some kind of innovation in 1999 eh? Right.

Anyhow, I'm not anti-patent, inventors should be protected. When they actually invent something that is


For all his jibber jabber, there's still no mention of an "email delivery of news" connection to Fark. He sounds very mental.

funk_soul_bubby: DrBenway: Mouhamad A. Naboulsi

Is that guy serious with this web site?


I wonder if he licensed that Doors song? I am skeptical. How perfect would a bust for that be?
 
2012-04-17 04:30:41 PM

justanotherfarkinfarker: Umm so how much did it cost fark.com?


and did you counter sue for costs??
 
2012-04-17 04:32:32 PM

Geotpf: The solution, therefore, is more government spending (IE, to hire more (and better) people (and pay them more) at the patent office to weed out the bad patents before they are even issued). But we can't do that, can we? Government is always part of the problem, it's never part of the solution!


There are actually two problems that led to this...
First, for a long time, "computer science" wasn't considered technical enough by the USPTO, so you had electrical engineers examining software patent applications that they didn't really understand. That's improving, but it doesn't help much with patents that were issued in the late 1990s - although you can get them reexamined now, and have actual programmers take a look at them.
Second, the USPTO is actually self-funded by patent application fees and patent maintenance fees, and has made a profit every year... but then Congress takes that money away and funnels it towards other shiat, rather than letting them hire more Examiners. That's starting to change too, in that they're finally being allowed to reinvest some money.

Which leads to the answer - if you know any computer programmers in Chicago, the PTO is currently hiring.
 
2012-04-17 04:33:24 PM
Never heard of him.
 
2012-04-17 04:34:37 PM

ByOwlLight: Blink: So.... I'm probably not understanding exactly what constitutes a non-disclosure agreement, but if all these patent cases have them -- how do we know it costs 2 million dollars to fight one?

The NDA comes into play if/when you settle, not when you fight it.


nope
you could ALWAYS make your settlement EXCLUDE an NDA.
the companies settling want the NDA so they dont look stupid later and have to disclose the cost to their stockholders.
HELLO STOCKHOLDERS.
DEMAND that your company no longer settle anything which includes an NDA

shining light on the trolls is one way to kill them
 
2012-04-17 04:35:02 PM
Good for you Drew. I still wish it would have timed itself better so you could have been on This American Life.
 
2012-04-17 04:35:08 PM

funk_soul_bubby: DrBenway: Mouhamad A. Naboulsi

Is that guy serious with this web site?


Oh good lord. And do you think he paid royalties for use of The Doors' song?
 
2012-04-17 04:36:26 PM

Theaetetus: Which leads to the answer - if you know any computer programmers in Chicago, the PTO is currently hiring.


ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
but would I need to be a lawyer too ???

bet it pays shiat
can I work from home?
hell why isnt most PTO work done from home?
where are they located

fine, just send me a link
 
2012-04-17 04:37:03 PM

Theaetetus: ByOwlLight: Theaetetus: Keep reading the rest of the comment. It'll help.

Only if you keep reading the rest of mine.

... you're on.


You guyz r cute ;)
 
2012-04-17 04:37:26 PM

namatad: Theaetetus: Which leads to the answer - if you know any computer programmers in Chicago, the PTO is currently hiring.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
but would I need to be a lawyer too ???

bet it pays shiat
can I work from home?
hell why isnt most PTO work done from home?
where are they located

fine, just send me a link


plus
would I get extra credit on my job app since I already have a software patent with my name on it?
WOOT
my first patent
 
2012-04-17 04:37:27 PM

impaler: There's more limitations there than just "internet" and "phone call".

Yeah. Limitations like how you have to take the obvious step of actually connecting the phone to the Internet.


Oh, I don't know about that... Go back to 1995 and ask someone to connect their phone to the internet. Most of them would answer that their phone already is their connection to the internet, that's why their modem makes wooshing and beeping noises and they can't get phone calls at the same time.

In fact, if you think about it, the concept was somewhat redundant since you were using a phone to connect a computer to use a phone, which is sort of the opposite of obvious. Most of the people who were interested in doing it already had PBXs and dedicated CO trunks.
 
2012-04-17 04:40:56 PM

FTGodWin:

It's s TED talk. You can say anything you want at those and everyone believes it.


Pretty much this - when an organization give equal time/weight to an evangelical christians batshiat insane lecture, one has to wonder...

I tend to treat TED talks like an upgraded/modernized version of Popular Science - lots of woohoo thats kickass awesome stories which aren't grounded in a lot of cold hard facts or are just straight-up infomercials... Yes, there are some exceptions...

/ I heard TED talks are pretty demanding and that more then one speaker has had to heel it down the drain while showering in order to adhere to the rigorous schedule...
 
Displayed 50 of 335 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report