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  
•       •       •

18746 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 06:01:54 PM

Theaetetus: And if he claimed "carrying voice over the internet" or "voice over frame relay" then you'd be right, but he's not. Proving that something else had been done doesn't make this patent invalid.


They were all used for telephony over computers and the internet in general. Taking the exact same thing, adding some lawyer speak, and getting it past the patent office doesn't somehow make it unique. It was extremely obvious at the time and they probably only got a patent because the person granting it had no idea of the research in the field.
 
2012-04-17 06:02:37 PM

Drubell: Drew, since you're here, can I have a free month of TF?


Wow, does that work?

Drew, can I have a giant bronze statue of myself riding a tyrannosaurus? Hook me up, dude.
 
2012-04-17 06:04:09 PM
Drew's speech touches on how much it just plain sucks to suddenly have to set aside almost all real work to focus on this kind of thing. It just completely eviscerates a small company's management team, not to mention the sheer horror at the retainer checks. As bad as it is though, at least we can take comfort in knowing that it gets much, much more complicated and expensive going forward - pretty much forever. Yay us.
 
2012-04-17 06:04:52 PM

Tziva: Drubell: Drew, since you're here, can I have a free month of TF?

Wow, does that work?

Drew, can I have a giant bronze statue of myself riding a tyrannosaurus? Hook me up, dude.


I would like the ability to greenlight my own submissions because they are all funny as fark. I laugh my ass off at my shiat. It's a stone riot!

And a pony.

Thanks, Santa Drew!
 
2012-04-17 06:04:59 PM
i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-04-17 06:10:39 PM
I thought this was a video on how to become a patent troll.

/Leaving disappointed
 
2012-04-17 06:10:43 PM
What I don't understand is how patents, which under the Constitution secure only a negative right to exclude, somehow expanded to secure the traditional bundle of rights associated with property. Luckily judges for the most part have utilized common sense when it comes to issuing injunctions and monetary damages, but the mere fact that judges have this wide discretion is scary. Take the Vonage example. They ended up settling for over half of their market capitalization ($200 million) because patents held by various telecoms threatened to completely destroy their business model.

Patent trolls are really only a small part of the problem
 
2012-04-17 06:12:20 PM

Theaetetus: Ask a random mechanical engineer to design an internal combustion engine. I doubt it will vary much from any of the revolutionary designs from the late 19th century.
Respectfully, you still don't get it... You're suggesting that, to show something was obvious back in 1995, we ask some random engineer now, in 2012, who has been studying that material for at least some portion of the past 17 years, who has learned on textbooks that describe it, has read whitepapers by the inventors of that patent, etc.
You're absolutely right - it may be obvious now.


If you think the average EE has sat and studied a basic design of a VoIP system, you're a fool.

That inventor has no white papers. The techniques of interest in making VoIP work (DACs, packetizing streams, compression, routing) was done by other people, and were just magical black boxes in his patent.

The only thing that's new in those 17 years, is the improved hardware performing the techniques of interest.
 
2012-04-17 06:15:19 PM
He smart.
 
2012-04-17 06:17:32 PM
pedobearapproved 2012-04-17 06:04:59 PM

I can't fap to this


Rookie.
 
2012-04-17 06:22:35 PM

justinguarini4ever: What I don't understand is how patents, which under the Constitution secure only a negative right to exclude, somehow expanded to secure the traditional bundle of rights associated with property.


They haven't... Having a patent gives you no right to use and enjoy your patented invention. What else are you referring to?
 
2012-04-17 06:24:21 PM

Geotpf: Design patents are a bit different than technological patents. It's possible to patent things like the shape of a computer case (to use Apple's original iMac for an example), and then to sue people who make computers that look very similar to such (such a case happened).


That's trade dress. Not a patent.
 
2012-04-17 06:25:31 PM

ohknaks: Theaetetus: And if he claimed "carrying voice over the internet" or "voice over frame relay" then you'd be right, but he's not. Proving that something else had been done doesn't make this patent invalid.

They were all used for telephony over computers and the internet in general. Taking the exact same thing, adding some lawyer speak, and getting it past the patent office doesn't somehow make it unique. It was extremely obvious at the time and they probably only got a patent because the person granting it had no idea of the research in the field.


That's a great conclusion, but again, without any actual evidence, the patent can't be invalidated simply because you say it was extremely obvious and the Examiner sucked. You need one or more references that teach or suggest every element in those claims, not simply a wiki article about the history of VoIP.
 
2012-04-17 06:27:21 PM

Chagrin: Geotpf: Design patents are a bit different than technological patents. It's possible to patent things like the shape of a computer case (to use Apple's original iMac for an example), and then to sue people who make computers that look very similar to such (such a case happened).

That's trade dress. Not a patent.


Actually, they were design patents that cover specific implementations of the trade dress.
Not what most people would call a patent, however.
 
2012-04-17 06:29:24 PM
Drew following in the great fark tradition of vanquishing trolls. Kudos. You are an outstanding example to the entire Interwebs.
+1000
 
2012-04-17 06:29:43 PM

impaler: Theaetetus: Ask a random mechanical engineer to design an internal combustion engine. I doubt it will vary much from any of the revolutionary designs from the late 19th century.
Respectfully, you still don't get it... You're suggesting that, to show something was obvious back in 1995, we ask some random engineer now, in 2012, who has been studying that material for at least some portion of the past 17 years, who has learned on textbooks that describe it, has read whitepapers by the inventors of that patent, etc.
You're absolutely right - it may be obvious now.

If you think the average EE has sat and studied a basic design of a VoIP system, you're a fool.

That inventor has no white papers. The techniques of interest in making VoIP work (DACs, packetizing streams, compression, routing) was done by other people, and were just magical black boxes in his patent.

The only thing that's new in those 17 years, is the improved hardware performing the techniques of interest.


Huh. I guess it sucks for him, then, that you've patented your magical history erasing ray and this doesn't go anywhere. (apparently doesn't lead to a new window)
 
2012-04-17 06:29:51 PM
Much respect, Drew.

*bites thumb at patent trolls*
 
2012-04-17 06:30:58 PM

Theaetetus:
That's a great conclusion, but again, without any actual evidence, the patent can't be invalidated simply because you say it was extremely obvious and the Examiner sucked. You need one or more references that teach or suggest every element in those claims, not simply a wiki article about the history of VoIP.


As a burgeoning GED in Law student, let me ask you a serious lawyer like question, purely from an academic standpoint.

Is it necessary that all the elements of the patent be shown to be obvious to invalidate the patent, or only portions of it. If my patent for an automatic carrot peeler has four elements, and someone comes along and legitimately demonstrates my flux capacitor is not original, does that invalidate the entire patent?

Is there a severable aspect to patents?
 
2012-04-17 06:37:51 PM

Theaetetus: Huh. I guess it sucks for him, then, that you've patented your magical history erasing ray and this doesn't go anywhere. (apparently doesn't lead to a new window)


How does a 1988 paper, that almost no engineer has read, that has nothing to do with VoIP, give engineers new insight after 1995 on VoIP design?
 
2012-04-17 06:41:43 PM

Rent Party: Theaetetus:
That's a great conclusion, but again, without any actual evidence, the patent can't be invalidated simply because you say it was extremely obvious and the Examiner sucked. You need one or more references that teach or suggest every element in those claims, not simply a wiki article about the history of VoIP.

As a burgeoning GED in Law student, let me ask you a serious lawyer like question, purely from an academic standpoint.

Is it necessary that all the elements of the patent be shown to be obvious to invalidate the patent, or only portions of it. If my patent for an automatic carrot peeler has four elements, and someone comes along and legitimately demonstrates my flux capacitor is not original, does that invalidate the entire patent?


The entire claim, as a whole, must be shown to be obvious. I can claim, for example, "a teleportation machine comprising a Sears-manufactured toaster oven; and [super awesome technology]," and the fact that the toaster oven is not new is irrelevant to the claim as a whole.

However, if I claim "a computing device comprising an Apple MacPro; a Microsoft keyboard; an HP mouse; and a Samsung monitor," it's obvious because all of those exist, even if no one has bothered putting together that specific combination (I'm sure someone has, though).

That said...
Is there a severable aspect to patents?

Yes, but it's a different one. If there are 40 claims in the patent, then they must be invalidated separately. Claims 1-39 could be obvious and invalidated by a court, but if claim 40 isn't and you infringe claim 40, you're still farked.
 
2012-04-17 06:44:25 PM

Theaetetus: Rent Party: Theaetetus:
That's a great conclusion, but again, without any actual evidence, the patent can't be invalidated simply because you say it was extremely obvious and the Examiner sucked. You need one or more references that teach or suggest every element in those claims, not simply a wiki article about the history of VoIP.

As a burgeoning GED in Law student, let me ask you a serious lawyer like question, purely from an academic standpoint.

Is it necessary that all the elements of the patent be shown to be obvious to invalidate the patent, or only portions of it. If my patent for an automatic carrot peeler has four elements, and someone comes along and legitimately demonstrates my flux capacitor is not original, does that invalidate the entire patent?

The entire claim, as a whole, must be shown to be obvious. I can claim, for example, "a teleportation machine comprising a Sears-manufactured toaster oven; and [super awesome technology]," and the fact that the toaster oven is not new is irrelevant to the claim as a whole.

However, if I claim "a computing device comprising an Apple MacPro; a Microsoft keyboard; an HP mouse; and a Samsung monitor," it's obvious because all of those exist, even if no one has bothered putting together that specific combination (I'm sure someone has, though).

That said...
Is there a severable aspect to patents?

Yes, but it's a different one. If there are 40 claims in the patent, then they must be invalidated separately. Claims 1-39 could be obvious and invalidated by a court, but if claim 40 isn't and you infringe claim 40, you're still farked.


Thank you! A very much enlightening and enriching educational experience.
 
2012-04-17 06:47:14 PM

bdub77: EbolaNYC: I just patented drinking beer that you enjoy.

I just patented a process for purchasing beer to drink or purchasing the ingredients used to make beer. Pay up.


I have a patent on methods of making payments and several trademarks on things used to make payments.
 
2012-04-17 06:48:00 PM

impaler: Theaetetus: Huh. I guess it sucks for him, then, that you've patented your magical history erasing ray and this doesn't go anywhere. (apparently doesn't lead to a new window)

How does a 1988 paper, that almost no engineer has read, that has nothing to do with VoIP, give engineers new insight after 1995 on VoIP design?


That paper doesn't exist:

impaler: That inventor has no white papers.

 
2012-04-17 06:52:26 PM

invictus2: did somebody say trolls?

[thechive.files.wordpress.com image 500x375]


www.mojoimage.com
 
2012-04-17 07:03:58 PM
Annnnnd there's one 'comment' to this at Huffington Post written at its usual 8th grade retarded level. That, Drew should be your answer in and of itself.
 
2012-04-17 07:04:59 PM

Theaetetus: That paper doesn't exist:
impaler: That inventor has no white papers.


You were saying engineers have "been studying that material for at least some portion of the past 17 years, who has learned on textbooks that describe it, has read whitepapers by the inventors of that patent,"

That inventor has no white papers on VoIP. And that VoIP design isn't something engineers study.
 
2012-04-17 07:05:37 PM
Here's another ridiculous patent.
Link (new window)
 
2012-04-17 07:12:46 PM

gravebayne2: i patented purple shirts. you owe me!


That's nothing!

I patented a method of automatically generating T-Shirts based on Fark headlines.

I'd be willing to settle for never having headline T-Shirts again.

/Wait.
//I may be too late to the party.
 
2012-04-17 07:13:49 PM
BTW the Wright brothers screwed themselves out of tons of business by suing anyone and everyone who they perceived as infringing on their many airplane patents. And they perceived pretty much anyone and everyone who made airplanes as infringing. Their favorite target was probably Glenn Curtiss. Curtiss himself never sued anyone for patent infringement because he never obtained any patents. He just spent his time innovating and building airplanes and if someone wanted to copy his innovations, not only was he fine with it, he'd show them how to do it.
 
2012-04-17 07:15:31 PM

gravebayne2: i patented purple shirts. you owe me!


craphound.com
 
2012-04-17 07:15:53 PM
I genuinely wish I can understand the TED talks, some of them subtitled and captioned. This one is not. I assume that the video is too fresh for the subtitles to be added yet.

Drew, if you happened to have written this talk before you went to stage, would it be too much to ask if you post the written version on here?

/ If not, I understand. I've been deaf since birth and I'm used to missing out on a lot of materials due to the lack of subtitles/captions/transcripts.
 
2012-04-17 07:22:06 PM

rev. dave: Drew following in the great fark tradition of vanquishing trolls.


What Fark have you been reading?
 
2012-04-17 07:22:25 PM
*tilts head to side and looks*
 
2012-04-17 07:22:49 PM
Drew, you stated your desire to penetrate the corporate vail--so...who owns the patent they were evoking? They sound ripe for intertube fury.
 
2012-04-17 07:23:34 PM
Drew rocked it. It wasn't the funniest, but it was the most on point and best laid out.
 
2012-04-17 07:24:58 PM

pedobearapproved: [Icantfaptothis.jpg]


I can.
 
2012-04-17 07:27:42 PM

Galloping Galoshes: Theaetetus: Sure, but patent trolls are more of a litigation issue than a patenting issue. Most of them don't write or prosecute their own patents, just buy them from others.
And as for obvious, it's really easy to declare something is obvious after reading it, in hindsight, but the patent office isn't allowed to work that way. 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.

Disagree. It is a problem in the patenting process because examiners aren't doing proper searches or have a good understanding of their art. Also, the Director can order a post-grant review, and third parties can request one as well, within 90 days of a grant. And a grant is not the first time anyone hears about a patent, they're all published within 18 months of filing. Since average pendency is almost 3 years, that's a while.


lol. This thread is is good for a few laughs. And obvious.


ohknaks: Theaetetus: And if he claimed "carrying voice over the internet" or "voice over frame relay" then you'd be right, but he's not. Proving that something else had been done doesn't make this patent invalid.

They were all used for telephony over computers and the internet in general. Taking the exact same thing, adding some lawyer speak, and getting it past the patent office doesn't somehow make it unique. It was extremely obvious at the time and they probably only got a patent because the person granting it had no idea of the research in the field.


Cite me the prior art that renders it obvious.
 
2012-04-17 07:29:08 PM
Was waiting for someone to yell 'DUKE SUCKS!'
 
2012-04-17 07:34:50 PM
img1.fark.netimg1.fark.netimg1.fark.netimg1.fark.netimg1.fark.net


img1.fark.netimg1.fark.netimg1.fark.netimg1.fark.netimg1.fark.net

img1.fark.netimg1.fark.netimg1.fark.netimg1.fark.netimg1.fark.net

img1.fark.netimg1.fark.netimg1.fark.netimg1.fark.netimg1.fark.net

img1.fark.netimg1.fark.netimg1.fark.netimg1.fark.netimg1.fark.net
 
2012-04-17 07:38:48 PM

Tziva: Drubell: Drew, since you're here, can I have a free month of TF?

Wow, does that work?

Drew, can I have a giant bronze statue of myself riding a tyrannosaurus? Hook me up, dude.


Ooh! Ooh! I got a better one. Drew, can you make me an 8" dick?

/as opposed to the 5'9" one I already am
 
2012-04-17 07:40:37 PM
I knew there was a reason I continue to lurk around here.

Thanks for fighting the good fight.
 
2012-04-17 07:41:22 PM

Theaetetus: 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.


Huh.

I might have to look into that. I'm taking the patent bar this summer.

/Hopefully I'll pass. I hear it's no joke.
//the MPEP scares the hell out of me. Nothing like an 8000 page document to make it seem simple!
 
2012-04-17 07:47:11 PM
Drew, good show. This was honestly the tightest and most straightforward TED talk I've ever seen. I couldn't believe how much information you got out there even the first minute in.

Usually these talks have a 2-3 minute meandering lead up of bullshiat before you even figure out what the hell the speaker is going to say, and you give up after 10 minutes because they haven't even gotten back to the third thing they promised to cover.
 
2012-04-17 07:52:55 PM

impaler: Here's another ridiculous patent.


You're wasting your time, I've tried this before. He's an apologist for a ludicrously broken system. Classic example of slothful induction (post pic of Iraqi minister saying everything's fine here).

People who actually invent things for a living know how bad it is. Drew is just lucky that this one was so obviously off the mark. Companies have foundered because of "infringements", as hinted at by his terrorist comparison statistic.
 
2012-04-17 07:59:11 PM

CrispFlows: I genuinely wish I can understand the TED talks, some of them subtitled and captioned. This one is not. I assume that the video is too fresh for the subtitles to be added yet.


I think you're right, it takes some time for them to upload the transcripts and subtitles. But I can't imagine they've stopped doing it.
 
2012-04-17 08:00:11 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


Another gem of a comment from this guy. (new window)

Also did a LinkedIn search on him. Odd work history... (new window)
 
2012-04-17 08:07:42 PM
Just watched this vid of Drew at TED.

Wow. What a dork.

But a successful dork, nonetheless
 
2012-04-17 08:14:43 PM
When did Drew turn into Keifer Sutherland?
 
2012-04-17 08:27:40 PM

Aardvark Inc.: pedobearapproved 2012-04-17 06:04:59 PM

I can't fap to this


Rookie.


This.

/banged out two and finished with a flourish.
 
2012-04-17 08:29:07 PM

Bacontastesgood: impaler: Here's another ridiculous patent.

You're wasting your time, I've tried this before. He's an apologist for a ludicrously broken system. Classic example of slothful induction (post pic of Iraqi minister saying everything's fine here).

People who actually invent things for a living know how bad it is. Drew is just lucky that this one was so obviously off the mark. Companies have foundered because of "infringements", as hinted at by his terrorist comparison statistic.


I'm sure they also called Thos. Jefferson an apologist for a broken system too.
 
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