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
 
2012-04-17 02:41:36 PM
Jesus, you're getting old Drew.
 
2012-04-17 02:44:53 PM
Glad to see your getting proper attention for our little circus, Drew
 
2012-04-17 02:45:17 PM
i patented purple shirts. you owe me!
 
2012-04-17 02:45:43 PM
This is pretty good stuff. He is smarter than I thought...not that I thought he was stupid, just all those references to drinking I suppose. I didn't realize Patent Trolling cost over 2 million dollars when you WIN. Yikes.
 
2012-04-17 02:47:15 PM
Too short.
 
2012-04-17 02:47:48 PM
I just patented commenting on Drew's TED patent troll thread, so pay up, biatches!!
 
2012-04-17 02:48:41 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com

YOU'LL GET NOTHING AND LIKE IT!
 
2012-04-17 02:49:57 PM

markie_farkie: I just patented commenting on Drew's TED patent troll thread, so pay up, biatches!!


As they say, it's not the fact that you hold the patent, it's if you can afford to enforce/prosecute it.

In other words, enforcement is the biatch!
 
2012-04-17 02:50:17 PM
This news release is relevant to my trolling.
 
2012-04-17 02:50:26 PM
Awesome. Congrats on the win...was just wondering the status of the suit.
 
2012-04-17 02:50:42 PM
I just patented the act of listening. All you motherf*ckers better settle.
 
2012-04-17 02:52:03 PM

Mirrorz: I just patented the act of listening. All you motherf*ckers better settle.


I just patented settling in lawsuits. BWAHAHAHAHHA
 
2012-04-17 02:52:16 PM
Umm so how much did it cost fark.com?
 
2012-04-17 02:52:16 PM

Mirrorz: I just patented the act of listening. All you motherf*ckers better settle.


LALALALA!!! I can't hear you! I'm not listening!!
 
2012-04-17 02:52:20 PM
Drew, seriously, it's ok to give yourself the Hero tag. You deserve it.
 
2012-04-17 02:52:41 PM
Yay, Drew!
 
2012-04-17 02:52:53 PM
I just patented fingers.

No more posts in this thread.
 
2012-04-17 02:53:56 PM
I just patented patents.

[game_over.jpg]
 
2012-04-17 02:54:34 PM
Yo dawg I heard you liked patents, so I patented getting a patent, you've been served.
 
2012-04-17 02:54:47 PM
This is awesome.
 
2012-04-17 02:54:51 PM

towatchoverme: I just patented fingers.

No more posts in this thread.


i type wwith m,y p[eenis
 
2012-04-17 02:55:16 PM

Biological Ali: I just patented patents.

[game_over.jpg]


fark!!!
 
2012-04-17 02:55:45 PM
Nice talk Drew!

Isn't this a good time to finally get a TED tag?
 
2012-04-17 02:55:56 PM
It's f*cking sad this even has to be a thing.
 
2012-04-17 02:55:59 PM
Must be some profanity limitations at TED. I was looking forward to "How about jack shiat and go fark yourself"
 
2012-04-17 02:56:05 PM
Is baseball bat with embedded spikes listed?
 
2012-04-17 02:56:42 PM
More proof that Fark is the ultimate troll-bait.
 
2012-04-17 02:56:58 PM
Glad you could sober up long enough to do this.

*runs*
 
2012-04-17 02:58:03 PM

Biological Ali: I just patented patents.

[game_over.jpg]


You're infringing my patent on patenting patents.

Tartlet?
 
2012-04-17 02:58:53 PM

towatchoverme: I just patented fingers.

No more posts in this thread.


I use a thought-to-text application to post.

Which I have patented.
 
2012-04-17 02:59:00 PM
Respectfully, Drew, you've got a lot of inaccuracies in that talk.

First, the burden of proof is not on the accused infringer in a law suit to prove they don't infringe, until the patent owner has first met their burden of proof of showing a prima facie case that you do infringe. Maybe you're confusing it with the criminal law burden of proof of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Secondly, the "frivolous" patents you mention at the beginning - phone calls, but on the internet; or radio, but for cell phones - don't actually exist. Those are just paraphrased descriptions of what the patent roughly describes, but that's like saying that Toyota's Prius transmission patents are really just patenting "a car, but with electricity!" They're not, and you couldn't get such a patent anyway - the prior art "a car" and "electricity" both exist, so the combination is by definition obvious.

That said, your recommendations at the end are great, and I'm glad things worked out well.
 
2012-04-17 02:59:26 PM
Too bad we can't get the legal system to highlight them in red.

Also, I like the terrorist reference. It is truly the godwin of our age.
 
2012-04-17 03:00:48 PM

towatchoverme: I just patented fingers.

No more posts in this thread.


You can't patent fingers, I already have a patent for "manual-powered interaction apparatus"
 
2012-04-17 03:01:06 PM
Am I the only one that's surprised Drew doesn't sound like Tiny Tim?
 
2012-04-17 03:01:08 PM
Well-done Drew. You were looking rather dapper as well.

I wish you'd do more of these types of talks.
 
2012-04-17 03:01:47 PM
For some reason, I always expected Drew to have a lisp and a neck scratching habit.
 
2012-04-17 03:01:56 PM
I patented the "Add Comment" button.

Go ahead.

I DARE you!

/good speech, needed more yuks though!
 
2012-04-17 03:02:01 PM
I was disappointed with the lack of pics of what trolls look like.
 
2012-04-17 03:02:16 PM
I just patented drinking beer that you enjoy.
 
2012-04-17 03:02:48 PM
Next up...How I Settled a Libel Suit
 
2012-04-17 03:03:27 PM

Theaetetus: Respectfully, Drew, you've got a lot of inaccuracies in that talk.


Because Drew didn't actually go through this shiat or anything. He's totally making it up.

/He didn't get five hours to explain, man, and he's not talking to a room full of attorneys. You don't need to go all internet expert on it.
 
2012-04-17 03:03:48 PM
I patented wearing a nice jacket and shirt with jeans - time to pay up, Drew!
 
2012-04-17 03:04:08 PM

ByOwlLight: Theaetetus: Respectfully, Drew, you've got a lot of inaccuracies in that talk.

Because Drew didn't actually go through this shiat or anything. He's totally making it up.


Keep reading the rest of the comment. It'll help.
 
2012-04-17 03:05:44 PM

bdub77: I was disappointed with the lack of pics of what trolls look like.


www.coolest-homemade-costumes.com
Proud.
 
2012-04-17 03:06:04 PM
Henceforth and heretofore forthwith I announce my intention to patent the patent pending process of patented patents only as it pertains to the patented process of patenting patents.

Patent...
 
2012-04-17 03:06:35 PM

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


Only if you keep reading the rest of mine.
 
2012-04-17 03:07:29 PM

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

Only if you keep reading the rest of mine.


... you're on.
 
2012-04-17 03:07:31 PM
I was astonished how much Drew looks like Lewis Black.
 
2012-04-17 03:07:42 PM
Fight a patent troll for $2 million

or

Hire a couple of veterans who need money to hunt down and kill the trolls for $500K each.

Option #2 would have been more effective. Dead trolls troll no more.
 
2012-04-17 03:08:37 PM

Yuri Futanari: towatchoverme: I just patented fingers.

No more posts in this thread.

i type wwith m,y p[eenis


*slap* *slap* *slap* *slap* ...
 
2012-04-17 03:09:34 PM
I patented the phrase, "Duke Sucks".

Pay up Drew.

/unless you've already done that
//which would be cool
 
2012-04-17 03:10:14 PM

bdub77: I was disappointed with the lack of pics of what trolls look like.


i.imgur.com

/good movie
 
2012-04-17 03:10:18 PM
So the patent troll got paid off from all except FARK?

Sound like the patent troll won and I am compelled to look into this business model, right or wrong.

I am glad FARK won for standing up to the patent bully.

Good to hear Drews voice, deeper then I would have thought.
 
2012-04-17 03:10:18 PM
That's some mighty fine talking, Drew. Too bad for you that I OWN THE PATENT FOR TALKING TO AUDIENCES ON THE INTERTUBES!
 
2012-04-17 03:10:21 PM

bdub77: I was disappointed with the lack of pics of what trolls look like.


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-04-17 03:12:41 PM
I don't give a rats ass how many times Drew has to defend on patents. Not my problem. His problem is keeping us entertained and maintaining a website to post our vitriolic crap.
 
2012-04-17 03:13:16 PM
Drew, I was quite impressed by the fact that you managed to do that entire 6+ minute talk without using a single mental placeholder.
 
2012-04-17 03:15:11 PM

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.
 
2012-04-17 03:16:01 PM
Well spoken, Drew. Short, sweet, and to the point. Nicely done!

/Patent trolls suck.
 
2012-04-17 03:16:32 PM
Little known fact - I patented Boobies links.

The terms of the settlement required Drew to cease and desist with the Boobies, plus an undisclosed sum for the irreparable harm inflicted upon Ceiling Cat Faptastic Intellectual Properties, LLC.

I bought a Caribbean island with some of the proceeds, and I'm posting from the beach on an experimental 50" iPad. And I'm not using my finger to input on the touchscreen. Nya.
 
2012-04-17 03:17:26 PM
So that's what Drew looks like without a beer.
 
2012-04-17 03:17:30 PM
Best Ted talk in a while. Drew, you sound as slurry and drunk irl as I thought you would. A little more southern too.
/never heard someone from Kentucky before.
 
2012-04-17 03:20:52 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Fight a patent troll for $2 million

or

Hire a couple of veterans who need money to hunt down and kill the trolls for $500K each.

Option #2 would have been more effective. Dead trolls troll no more.


From what I remember from the threads when Drew first metnioned the lawsuit, since Gooseberry Natural Resources LLC was incorporated in Delaware, it was imposssible to hunt down the people behind it.
 
2012-04-17 03:21:39 PM

Theaetetus: Respectfully, Drew, you've got a lot of inaccuracies in that talk.

First, the burden of proof is not on the accused infringer in a law suit to prove they don't infringe, until the patent owner has first met their burden of proof of showing a prima facie case that you do infringe. Maybe you're confusing it with the criminal law burden of proof of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Secondly, the "frivolous" patents you mention at the beginning - phone calls, but on the internet; or radio, but for cell phones - don't actually exist. Those are just paraphrased descriptions of what the patent roughly describes, but that's like saying that Toyota's Prius transmission patents are really just patenting "a car, but with electricity!" They're not, and you couldn't get such a patent anyway - the prior art "a car" and "electricity" both exist, so the combination is by definition obvious.

That said, your recommendations at the end are great, and I'm glad things worked out well.


It's s TED talk. You can say anything you want at those and everyone believes it.
 
2012-04-17 03:24:02 PM
Drew should file that patent and frame it if it goes through.
 
2012-04-17 03:25:53 PM

DrZiffle: Glad you could sober up long enough to do this.

*runs*


He was sober?
 
2012-04-17 03:25:57 PM

Flab: Smeggy Smurf: Fight a patent troll for $2 million

or

Hire a couple of veterans who need money to hunt down and kill the trolls for $500K each.

Option #2 would have been more effective. Dead trolls troll no more.

From what I remember from the threads when Drew first metnioned the lawsuit, since Gooseberry Natural Resources LLC was incorporated in Delaware, it was imposssible to hunt down the people behind it.


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

Im actually a little surprised that Gooseberry rolled over so easily. Im sure there is a lot more to the story than what was explained in 6 minutes, but this is the first time I think ive ever seen one of these groups decline an NDA.
 
2012-04-17 03:26:44 PM
I'm too impatient to watch a whole video

Somebody post an abstract that quickly summaries the presentation, so I can skim that and assume that the content of the talk is presented accurately and wholly within in.
 
2012-04-17 03:27:02 PM

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


i.imgur.com
 
2012-04-17 03:27:54 PM
dumbimages.net
 
2012-04-17 03:30:14 PM
$2 million? Wow. And to think I wondered if FARK is a full-time thing for Drew or just something he does on the side.
 
2012-04-17 03:30:25 PM

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


Got a citation for that? Haven't heard that IV is using shells, but I'd be interested to know more.
 
2012-04-17 03:31:20 PM
I patented TotalFark. Now pay up.
 
2012-04-17 03:32:32 PM
There's only one problem: Drew didn't beat the patent troll. He settled. He didn't have to fork over any cash and he isn't bound by an NDA, but he still settled. The troll just decided it was no longer worth their effort. Drew had to pay attorneys quite a bit of money. The troll is a company of lawyers. The suit cost them very little beyond time. To beat them, one of two things would have had to have happened: 1) they drop their suit or 2) they lose their suit in court and Drew wins a counter-suit that asked for punitive damages.
 
2012-04-17 03:32:57 PM

Yuri Futanari: bdub77: I was disappointed with the lack of pics of what trolls look like.

[i.imgur.com image 640x426]

/good movie


I have it in my Netflix streaming queue. Haven't gotten around to watching it yet.
 
2012-04-17 03:35:36 PM
Had some folks ask me where the data came from. Most of it was from here: The Real Cost of Patent Trolls

Shorter analysis of the same thing from Brad Feld
 
2012-04-17 03:36:30 PM

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'.
 
2012-04-17 03:37:39 PM
However Drew beat a patent troll, he didn't do it long enough, hard enough, or with a big enough stick.
 
2012-04-17 03:37:52 PM
Excellent job Drew!
 
2012-04-17 03:39:27 PM
The weird bluescreen behind Drew was strange, I was actually surprised there was an audience. The whole thing looked a little fake.
 
2012-04-17 03:39:40 PM

Theaetetus: Respectfully, Drew, you've got a lot of inaccuracies in that talk.

First, the burden of proof is not on the accused infringer in a law suit to prove they don't infringe, until the patent owner has first met their burden of proof of showing a prima facie case that you do infringe. Maybe you're confusing it with the criminal law burden of proof of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Secondly, the "frivolous" patents you mention at the beginning - phone calls, but on the internet; or radio, but for cell phones - don't actually exist. Those are just paraphrased descriptions of what the patent roughly describes, but that's like saying that Toyota's Prius transmission patents are really just patenting "a car, but with electricity!" They're not, and you couldn't get such a patent anyway - the prior art "a car" and "electricity" both exist, so the combination is by definition obvious.

That said, your recommendations at the end are great, and I'm glad things worked out well.


I respect your opinion, because you mentioned you're a patent attorney in another thread. But come on... I can't believe you haven't come across a ton of mind-numbingly obvious patents in your career.

Running a business, I have.

Yes, there are a ton of legitimate patents. I'm sure most of what Toyota patented in your example is fine and dandy.

But you can't deny the existence of patent trolls and obvious method patents. They're all over.
 
2012-04-17 03:40:45 PM

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
 
2012-04-17 03:41:16 PM

Msol: The weird bluescreen behind Drew was strange, I was actually surprised there was an audience. The whole thing looked a little fake.


it was actually shot on the same stage as the moon landings
 
2012-04-17 03:41:32 PM

JackieRabbit: There's only one problem: Drew didn't beat the patent troll. He settled. He didn't have to fork over any cash and he isn't bound by an NDA, but he still settled. The troll just decided it was no longer worth their effort. Drew had to pay attorneys quite a bit of money. The troll is a company of lawyers. The suit cost them very little beyond time. To beat them, one of two things would have had to have happened: 1) they drop their suit or 2) they lose their suit in court and Drew wins a counter-suit that asked for punitive damages.


I'm not sure what you criteria is for "beat". That you would profit off at the troll's expense? That's unrealistic.

The troll spent a lot on suing Drew to begin with. He did lose something, though probably far less than Drew. But the bottom line is that troll get nothing from Drew, which is SORT of a win.
 
2012-04-17 03:41:54 PM

Drew: Had some folks ask me where the data came from. Most of it was from here: The Real Cost of Patent Trolls

Shorter analysis of the same thing from Brad Feld


Your whole point about, essentially, not feeding the trolls is exactly why Rollerblades has never been sued successfully (at least since I last checked). They refuse to settle. You'd think more attorneys would catch on.
 
2012-04-17 03:42:02 PM
Has anyone done the joke about patenting something obvious and getting everyone to pay up yet?
 
2012-04-17 03:43:41 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 exist. Those are just paraphrased descriptions of what the patent roughly describes, but that's like saying that Toyota's Prius transmission patents are really just patenting "a car, but with electricity!"


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".
 
2012-04-17 03:45:03 PM
Tag.
 
2012-04-17 03:45:43 PM

gingerjet: Has anyone done the joke about patenting something obvious and getting everyone to pay up yet?


patented that. pay up.
 
2012-04-17 03:46:01 PM

downstairs: I respect your opinion, because you mentioned you're a patent attorney in another thread. But come on... I can't believe you haven't come across a ton of mind-numbingly obvious patents in your career.

Running a business, I have.

Yes, there are a ton of legitimate patents. I'm sure most of what Toyota patented in your example is fine and dandy.

But you can't deny the existence of patent trolls and obvious method patents. They're all over.


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.
 
2012-04-17 03:48:17 PM

gingerjet: Has anyone done the joke about patenting something obvious and getting everyone to pay up yet?


I've patented ejaculation. Everyone, including quite a few women who claim it, owe me a shiatload of money. Even the liars.
 
2012-04-17 03:49:06 PM

PYROY: For some reason, I always expected Drew to have a lisp and a neck scratching habit.


I was expecting the banjo duel from Deliverance to be playing in the background.
 
2012-04-17 03:51:09 PM

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.
 
2012-04-17 03:51:47 PM

Theaetetus: Respectfully, Drew, you've got a lot of inaccuracies in that talk.


not a lot of time to go into detail in six minutes, you shoulda seen what all got cut

First, the burden of proof is not on the accused infringer in a law suit to prove they don't infringe, until the patent owner has first met their burden of proof of showing a prima facie case that you do infringe. Maybe you're confusing it with the criminal law burden of proof of "innocent until proven guilty"?

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.

The reason this particular case was so aggravating, as I mentioned in the talk, was that we flat out didn't infringe on their patent. I'm not sure what evidence they thought they had or who they had to show what to, but the bottom line is - they didn't have any evidence (and couldn't provide any, which is why they exited the case). So yes I know what you're referring to, however in this particular instance Fark was indeed sued by a patent troll who could not provide evidence. This appears to be a common tactic with patent trolls, mainly because by the time they're forced to provide their evidence, the case is several months and several tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in progress.

Secondly, the "frivolous" patents you mention at the beginning - phone calls, but on the internet; or radio, but for cell phones - don't actually exist. Those are just paraphrased descriptions of what the patent roughly describes, but that's like saying that Toyota's Prius transmission patents are really just patenting "a car, but with electricity!" They're not, and you couldn't get such a patent anyway - the prior art "a car" and "electricity" both exist, so the combination is by definition obvious.

I respectfully disagree - check what's currently being filed in the mobile space. Yes the patents contain more detailed information but what patent trolls do is use their ability to file a lawsuit that might pertain to a company in order to extract a settlement.

That said, your recommendations at the end are great, and I'm glad things worked out well.

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 would work out pretty much how you describe it - this is a different animal). And like I said, I had six minutes to talk to a non-legal audience so a lot of specifics got dropped. I wouldn't ever deign to tell a room full of attorneys how the process works. The strategy still holds however
 
2012-04-17 03:51:56 PM
As an inventor, patent holder and producer, I really enjoyed this. Unfortunately, people who have legitimate cases also need deep pockets just protect their IP.
 
2012-04-17 03:51:59 PM
blogs.rand.com

You take the box? OK, show us what is in the box!

blogs.rand.com

NOOOOOTHING! AB-SO-LUTE-LY NOTHING! Stupid!! YOU SOOO STUUUUUPID!!!!
 
2012-04-17 03:52:04 PM

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.


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.
 
2012-04-17 03:54:23 PM

DrySocket: Flab: Smeggy Smurf: Fight a patent troll for $2 million

or

Hire a couple of veterans who need money to hunt down and kill the trolls for $500K each.

Option #2 would have been more effective. Dead trolls troll no more.

From what I remember from the threads when Drew first metnioned the lawsuit, since Gooseberry Natural Resources LLC was incorporated in Delaware, it was imposssible to hunt down the people behind it.

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

Im actually a little surprised that Gooseberry rolled over so easily. Im sure there is a lot more to the story than what was explained in 6 minutes, but this is the first time I think ive ever seen one of these groups decline an NDA.


Drew said their address was a strip mall which had nothing to do with their physical address.
They attack from the shadows, like legal ninjitsu.
 
2012-04-17 03:55:57 PM
Has anyone gotten Lawrence Lessig to weigh in on this (or something similar)?
I can only find his free culture talk at work.
 
2012-04-17 03:57:05 PM

Oznog: DrySocket: Flab: Smeggy Smurf: Fight a patent troll for $2 million

or

Hire a couple of veterans who need money to hunt down and kill the trolls for $500K each.

Option #2 would have been more effective. Dead trolls troll no more.

From what I remember from the threads when Drew first metnioned the lawsuit, since Gooseberry Natural Resources LLC was incorporated in Delaware, it was imposssible to hunt down the people behind it.

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

Im actually a little surprised that Gooseberry rolled over so easily. Im sure there is a lot more to the story than what was explained in 6 minutes, but this is the first time I think ive ever seen one of these groups decline an NDA.

Drew said their address was a strip mall which had nothing to do with their physical address.
They attack from the shadows, like legal ninjitsu.


This is correct

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
 
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...
 
2012-04-17 04:43:32 PM

namatad: 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


Oh, no, I know that you don't have to have the NDA. Just NDAs don't usually come up when you're fighting something, as compared to when settling. So far as I understand it.
 
2012-04-17 04:44:04 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?

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.


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).
 
2012-04-17 04:44:19 PM

Drew: Oznog: DrySocket: Flab: Smeggy Smurf: Fight a patent troll for $2 million

or

Hire a couple of veterans who need money to hunt down and kill the trolls for $500K each.

Option #2 would have been more effective. Dead trolls troll no more.

From what I remember from the threads when Drew first metnioned the lawsuit, since Gooseberry Natural Resources LLC was incorporated in Delaware, it was imposssible to hunt down the people behind it.

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

Im actually a little surprised that Gooseberry rolled over so easily. Im sure there is a lot more to the story than what was explained in 6 minutes, but this is the first time I think ive ever seen one of these groups decline an NDA.

Drew said their address was a strip mall which had nothing to do with their physical address.
They attack from the shadows, like legal ninjitsu.

This is correct

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


though it is interesting that they settled a month or two after that...
 
2012-04-17 04:44:43 PM
Someone sued Drew over the practice of allowing mods to troll threads with alt accounts?
 
2012-04-17 04:45:45 PM
Drew! you're my hero, that was AWESOME, but I really believe the best way to beat trolls like this is with a nail studded plank.
 
2012-04-17 04:46:12 PM

Earguy: 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?


Maybe he has a patent on websites designed in the 1980's.
 
2012-04-17 04:46:23 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 would work out pretty much how you describe it - this is a different animal). And like I said, I had six minutes to talk to a non-legal audience so a lot of specifics got dropped. I wouldn't ever deign to tell a room full of attorneys how the process works. The strategy still holds however


Do I remember you telling me about a little change to the law? Something about a shell company losing and having no money, the attorneys get to pony up the bill?
 
2012-04-17 04:49:59 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?

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.


I think you meant this.

/someone will try to steal your shiat
fayinc.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-04-17 04:51:22 PM
Drew, did someone suggest you to TED to be a speaker, or did you suggest yourself? What was it like working with the TED speaker team?
 
2012-04-17 04:52:21 PM
Did anyone catch the TED comment section? Clearly, Mouhamad A. Naboulsi missed the whole point and got all butt hurt. His profile should be trolled :p I mean, who ends with "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.." What an a$$
 
2012-04-17 04:53:30 PM

Drew: I respectfully disagree...


moviesmedia.ign.com
...I prefer the stick you only have to beat a patent troll with once
 
2012-04-17 04:54:12 PM

Drew: Msol: The weird bluescreen behind Drew was strange, I was actually surprised there was an audience. The whole thing looked a little fake.

it was actually shot on the same stage as the moon landings


That's great and all but did the holographic tupac make his presence?
 
2012-04-17 04:54:27 PM

Theaetetus: 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.


That's still batshiat stupid though if you have to essentially plead guilty or not guilty before you know what they're talking about. I mean, imagine them suing a huge outfit like google with this patent claim without pointing to exactly where the infringement was taking place. Would they have to comb their entire web ecosystem before they could decide they needed to settle or go to trial?
 
2012-04-17 04:56:39 PM
speaking of trolls, how did drew get on my ignore list again??
 
2012-04-17 04:56:50 PM

Geotpf: 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.


That exact patent is part of the EFF's patent busting project. See here for an article on the issue:

Link (new window)
 
2012-04-17 04:57:34 PM
Drew, at the beginning i could see your nervousness a bit. You settled into the talk very well though. Well farking done, man. Well farking done.

But geez, the suit and the cheek microphones felt so Steve-Jobs-iphone-talk smug, but in a good way, haha.

/was good seeing you again at the Lex comic convention last month
 
2012-04-17 04:57:41 PM

Theaetetus: 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.


The bold part is the problem, Theaetetus. As an attorney, you know that Summary Judgment isn't something that comes immediately after the Complaint/Answer. It is at the end of a very long, very expensive road called discovery. Discovery costs millions in cases like this; the hiring of experts, the interrogatories, the depositions... millions of dollars before the defendant can actually say, "See your honor - they got nothing. Make them show SOMETHING or let us go home."

It is rare to see the courts entertain a judgment based solely on the complaint. "Failure to state a cause of action" just isn't something most attorneys try. They should. Perhaps that might have helped Drew's case. But saying "Summary Judgment" will save Fark is exactly the problem that Drew has... it would. AFTER he spent millions on discovery.
 
2012-04-17 04:57:44 PM

pushpinder: Did anyone catch the TED comment section? Clearly, Mouhamad A. Naboulsi missed the whole point and got all butt hurt. His profile should be trolled :p I mean, who ends with "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.." What an a$$


LOL
I was too lazy to login ... but yah we should totalllly infringe on his non-patents
 
2012-04-17 05:00:43 PM
did somebody say trolls?

thechive.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-04-17 05:01:06 PM
http://www.icallsafe.com/ is the TED talk trolls webside (Mouhamad A. Naboulsi, CEO and Inventor). I love the graphic on their site: <img src="http://www.icallsafe.com/images/new_pa1.jpg" width="640" height="264">
 
2012-04-17 05:02:17 PM

Kipple: Yeah, nothing more than an accusation is required up front to file the suit...

The bold part is the problem, Theaetetus. As an attorney, you know that Summary Judgment isn't something that comes immediately after the Complaint/Answer. It is at the end of a very long, very expensive road called discovery. Discovery costs millions in cases like this; the hiring of experts, the interrogatories, the depositions... millions of dollars before the defendant can actually say, "See your honor - they got nothing. Make them show SOMETHING or let us go home."

It is rare to see the courts entertain a judgment based solely on the complaint. "Failure to state a cause of action" just isn't something most attorneys try. They should. Perhaps that might have helped Drew's case. But saying "Summary Judgment" will save Fark is exactly the problem that Drew has... it would. AFTER he spent millions on discovery.


Well, except that Drew wouldn't have to spend a penny on his own discovery if he doesn't want to, and if you're suggesting that defendants shouldn't have to respond to discovery requests or that plaintiffs should have all of their information in hand prior to filing the complaint, then I have to disagree... Unless we're talking corporate espionage, the court's subpoena power is the only way to get a lot of the information. Removing discovery would make it easy for large corporations to hide their internal memos discussing what screw ups they've done.
 
2012-04-17 05:03:07 PM

Roman Fyseek: 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 would work out pretty much how you describe it - this is a different animal). And like I said, I had six minutes to talk to a non-legal audience so a lot of specifics got dropped. I wouldn't ever deign to tell a room full of attorneys how the process works. The strategy still holds however

Do I remember you telling me about a little change to the law? Something about a shell company losing and having no money, the attorneys get to pony up the bill?


yes - problem is, getting to that point is dangerous for a company that can't afford to lose everything to get to that stage
 
2012-04-17 05:07:04 PM
Kipple: The bold part is the problem, Theaetetus. As an attorney, you know that Summary Judgment isn't something that comes immediately after the Complaint/Answer. It is at the end of a very long, very expensive road called discovery. Discovery costs millions in cases like this; the hiring of experts, the interrogatories, the depositions... millions of dollars before the defendant can actually say, "See your honor - they got nothing. Make them show SOMETHING or let us go home."

Correct - if we could have done that from the get go (I tried), the lawsuit would have been over instantly. The important part of the patent is the phrase "news release", which means only "press release" (and the patent itself even gave a nod to this definition).

The patent troll did not have evidence of infringement because Fark didn't infringe. They read their own patent wrong and assumed "news release" was "news". Yet they filed anyhow, and got 7 of the 9 defendants, none of whom infringed either, to write a check
 
2012-04-17 05:07:46 PM

Drew: Roman Fyseek: 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 would work out pretty much how you describe it - this is a different animal). And like I said, I had six minutes to talk to a non-legal audience so a lot of specifics got dropped. I wouldn't ever deign to tell a room full of attorneys how the process works. The strategy still holds however

Do I remember you telling me about a little change to the law? Something about a shell company losing and having no money, the attorneys get to pony up the bill?

yes - problem is, getting to that point is dangerous for a company that can't afford to lose everything to get to that stage


The other change that should help is that trolls now have to sue everyone individually... No more single suits against Apple, Microsoft, Google, Toshiba, Drew Curtis, Samsung, etc. as joint defendants, unless they actually were legitimately collaborating on something.
That significantly raises their costs, and makes it tougher for the court to say "Drew's in Kentucky, Microsoft is in Seattle... I guess East Texas is a good place for a suit since it's halfway between."
 
2012-04-17 05:08:43 PM

Drew: The patent troll did not have evidence of infringement because Fark didn't infringe. They read their own patent wrong and assumed "news release" was "news". Yet they filed anyhow, and got 7 of the 9 defendants, none of whom infringed either, to write a check


You sure none of the others do blast email press releases? ;)
 
2012-04-17 05:10:06 PM
There's a show on ABC called Shark Tank in Canada it's called Dragons Den. About a month ago a guy came on and proudly admitted he was a patent troll & wanted X amount of $$ for whatever all the Sharks except for the FUBU guy are in high tech. I thought Mark Cuban was going to rip the guys head off even the FUBU guy it turns out had been sued by this guy for having a hole in clothing for ear buds.
 
2012-04-17 05:10:44 PM

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

Isn't that how you started?

You should counter-sue!


Yeah we actually had prior art - had this actually been a patent that applied to us
 
2012-04-17 05:11:03 PM

ConConHead: Relevant to patent troll suits

Nest slams back at Honeywell over thermostat patents (new window)


Well there is a reason most thermostats are not dial shaped, honeywell did patent a ton of shiat years ago and it has more relevance than most of these process invention lawsuits being filed since its an actual design.
 
2012-04-17 05:11:28 PM

Theaetetus: Drew: The patent troll did not have evidence of infringement because Fark didn't infringe. They read their own patent wrong and assumed "news release" was "news". Yet they filed anyhow, and got 7 of the 9 defendants, none of whom infringed either, to write a check

You sure none of the others do blast email press releases? ;)


pretty sure. Hell if I know tho. I know for sure we don't! Heh
 
2012-04-17 05:12:01 PM

Theaetetus: Kipple: Yeah, nothing more than an accusation is required up front to file the suit...

The bold part is the problem, Theaetetus. As an attorney, you know that Summary Judgment isn't something that comes immediately after the Complaint/Answer. It is at the end of a very long, very expensive road called discovery. Discovery costs millions in cases like this; the hiring of experts, the interrogatories, the depositions... millions of dollars before the defendant can actually say, "See your honor - they got nothing. Make them show SOMETHING or let us go home."

It is rare to see the courts entertain a judgment based solely on the complaint. "Failure to state a cause of action" just isn't something most attorneys try. They should. Perhaps that might have helped Drew's case. But saying "Summary Judgment" will save Fark is exactly the problem that Drew has... it would. AFTER he spent millions on discovery.

Well, except that Drew wouldn't have to spend a penny on his own discovery if he doesn't want to, and if you're suggesting that defendants shouldn't have to respond to discovery requests or that plaintiffs should have all of their information in hand prior to filing the complaint, then I have to disagree... Unless we're talking corporate espionage, the court's subpoena power is the only way to get a lot of the information. Removing discovery would make it easy for large corporations to hide their internal memos discussing what screw ups they've done.


Drew does have to spend the money - He has to hire an attorney to even file the Answer for goodness sakes. Lawyers are not free - the simple act of filing the lawsuit means Drew owes. And patent attorneys are not cheap. As well, saying Drew doesn't have to spend money on his own discovery is silly as well - of COURSE he does. He has to prepare his case, he has to pay his attorney. All that costs. Yeah, maybe he won't actually try to find out who owns the company, who is behind this, what their patent entails, etc. But... that is kinda slitting your throat. You gotta defend yourself on all levels. And that costs money.

And I agree as well that the Plaintiff shouldn't have to have every duck in a row before he starts. That is exactly why you don't see many attorneys try for the "failure to state a claim" motion. Most judges will give a plaintiff ample time to demand discovery in order to prepare their cases. Maybe it could have helped Drew - I doubt it. But nothing else would have gotten him to the "No, I didn't. Prove it." level of ending the case faster...

Which - all proves exactly what I said - Drew is only going to "win" once he hits the Summary Judgment Stage - and in order to get there, you gotta spend cash. Lots and lots of cash.
 
2012-04-17 05:13:17 PM

pushpinder: http://www.icallsafe.com/ is the TED talk trolls webside (Mouhamad A. Naboulsi, CEO and Inventor). I love the graphic on their site: <img src="http://www.icallsafe.com/images/new_pa1.jpg" width="640" height="264">


I wonder if he properly licensed those images.
 
2012-04-17 05:14:24 PM

Theaetetus: 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.


And what the patent describes is not only "obvious," but is about the only physical way to connect a telephone through an IP network to a PSTN network. You have to have the phone connect to the IP network. It has to be full-duplex. It has to convert voice to packets and vice versa. It has to send those packets to the PSTN and vice versa. It has to transmit PSTN control protocols.

And the reason it took us "20 years to get to VoIP" (depending on your start date), has more to do with Internet speeds (bandwidth and latency) than anything to do with that obvious patent. They don't even mention any use of a discrete cosine transform for compression - which goes a lot further to making VoIP work than anything in that patent.
 
2012-04-17 05:14:25 PM

Drew: The patent troll did not have evidence of infringement because Fark didn't infringe. They read their own patent wrong and assumed "news release" was "news". Yet they filed anyhow, and got 7 of the 9 defendants, none of whom infringed either, to write a check


To be fair, no one knows if they wrote a check as they're all under NDA.
 
2012-04-17 05:14:35 PM

Theaetetus: The other change that should help is that trolls now have to sue everyone individually... No more single suits against Apple, Microsoft, Google, Toshiba, Drew Curtis, Samsung, etc. as joint defendants, unless they actually were legitimately collaborating on something.
That significantly raises their costs, and makes it tougher for the court to say "Drew's in Kentucky, Microsoft is in Seattle... I guess East Texas is a good place for a suit since it's halfway between."


Oh hey that is handy, I like that one
 
2012-04-17 05:16:00 PM

cmunic8r99: [dumbimages.net image 521x79]


Is that short for "Stormageddon"?
 
2012-04-17 05:22:23 PM

Theaetetus: 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.


Yes, but patents don't pertain to laymen standards. It's if "the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."
 
2012-04-17 05:25:04 PM

pushpinder: Did anyone catch the TED comment section? Clearly, Mouhamad A. Naboulsi missed the whole point and got all butt hurt. His profile should be trolled :p I mean, who ends with "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.." What an a$$


Someone needs to point out to the guy that the "product" he's hawking infringes on Microsoft and Ford technology - he's made what amounts to the SYNC system Ford released on the 2008 Focus.
 
2012-04-17 05:26:23 PM
www.newyorker.com
 
2012-04-17 05:29:50 PM

impaler: Theaetetus: 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.

Yes, but patents don't pertain to laymen standards. It's if "the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."


I never said I was referring to a layman... If you have some evidence that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time, then by all means, cite it... The EFF is looking for just such evidence.

But simply saying it's obvious is just a conclusion. It'd be like saying Zimmerman's a murderer. That's just the conclusion - unless the DA shows some evidence and the jury agrees, then it'd be just as wrong to throw him in jail as it would be to throw out the patent.
 
2012-04-17 05:46:13 PM
Cool, thanks for posting this, Drew. I had wanted to see it after you talked about it at Vegas.
 
2012-04-17 05:48:53 PM

pushpinder: http://www.icallsafe.com/ is the TED talk trolls webside (Mouhamad A. Naboulsi, CEO and Inventor). I love the graphic on their site: <img src="http://www.icallsafe.com/images/new_pa1.jpg" width="640" height="264">


I hate you for making me go to his terribad website
 
2012-04-17 05:49:36 PM

Praise Cheesus: pushpinder: Did anyone catch the TED comment section? Clearly, Mouhamad A. Naboulsi missed the whole point and got all butt hurt. His profile should be trolled :p I mean, who ends with "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.." What an a$$

Someone needs to point out to the guy that the "product" he's hawking infringes on Microsoft and Ford technology - he's made what amounts to the SYNC system Ford released on the 2008 Focus.


My guess is that that is why he is pissed. He is claiming he started development in the 90's and had a working prototype by 2002, although he doesn't say when he patented it. And, if they did rip him off, it wouldn't exactly be the first time the automakers legitimately infringed on a patent.

I think he loses over prior art though. I don't see anything in his idea that wasn't in fiction for decades, and I doubt anything in his method of implementation is new or unique.
 
2012-04-17 05:49:47 PM

Flab: Too short.


And just look at those sharp knees.
 
2012-04-17 05:50:05 PM

Theaetetus: I never said I was referring to a layman... If you have some evidence that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time, then by all means, cite it... The EFF is looking for just such evidence.

But simply saying it's obvious is just a conclusion. It'd be like saying Zimmerman's a murderer. That's just the conclusion - unless the DA shows some evidence and the jury agrees, then it'd be just as wrong to throw him in jail as it would be to throw out the patent.



How about this. People have been carrying voice over the internet since 1973:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_over_IP#Historical_milestones

Voice over frame relay standards were made in 1992. It was quite obvious by 1995.
 
2012-04-17 05:51:03 PM

Theaetetus: I never said I was referring to a layman... If you have some evidence that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time, then by all means, cite it... The EFF is looking for just such evidence.

But simply saying it's obvious is just a conclusion. It'd be like saying Zimmerman's a murderer. That's just the conclusion - unless the DA shows some evidence and the jury agrees, then it'd be just as wrong to throw him in jail as it would be to throw out the patent.


Ask a random computer engineer to design a VoIP system. I doubt it will vary much from that patent.
 
2012-04-17 05:52:30 PM

Drew:

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


Hence, the Fark.com business model.

/This guy knows what he's talking about.
 
2012-04-17 05:52:44 PM
This thread is proceeding in a very satisfactory manner.

Carry on
 
2012-04-17 05:56:13 PM

impaler: Theaetetus: I never said I was referring to a layman... If you have some evidence that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time, then by all means, cite it... The EFF is looking for just such evidence.

But simply saying it's obvious is just a conclusion. It'd be like saying Zimmerman's a murderer. That's just the conclusion - unless the DA shows some evidence and the jury agrees, then it'd be just as wrong to throw him in jail as it would be to throw out the patent.

Ask a random computer engineer to design a VoIP system. I doubt it will vary much from that patent.


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. That says nothing about whether it was obvious then, or whether it's only obvious now because of the inventor's work.
 
2012-04-17 05:57:13 PM

ohknaks: Theaetetus: I never said I was referring to a layman... If you have some evidence that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time, then by all means, cite it... The EFF is looking for just such evidence.

But simply saying it's obvious is just a conclusion. It'd be like saying Zimmerman's a murderer. That's just the conclusion - unless the DA shows some evidence and the jury agrees, then it'd be just as wrong to throw him in jail as it would be to throw out the patent.


How about this. People have been carrying voice over the internet since 1973:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_over_IP#Historical_milestones

Voice over frame relay standards were made in 1992. It was quite obvious by 1995.


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.
 
2012-04-17 05:57:19 PM
Drew, since you're here, can I have a free month of TF?
 
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.
 
2012-04-17 08:30:24 PM
Way to go, Drew!! What a huge drain on the system.
 
2012-04-17 08:35:54 PM
Good talk, but I'm gonna be honest...some of those graphics were appallingly bad.
 
2012-04-17 08:39:21 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.

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?.


I'll do my best to transcribe. Using the listen, pause, type method and doing it quickly so please forgive typos and stuff:

Last January my company fark.com was sued along with Yahoo, MSN, reddit, AOL, Techchrunch and others by a company called Gooseberry Natural Resources. Gooseberry owned the patent for the creation and distribution of news releases via email. (audience chuckles) Now it may seem strange that such a thing can be patented but it does happen all the time. Take something already being done and patent it for an emerging technology. Like phonecalls on the internet, or video listings for TV shows, or radio but for cell phones. And so on.

The problem with these patents is that the mechanisms are obscure and the patent system is dysfunctional. As a result most of these lawsuits end in a settlement. And because these settlements are under a non-disclosure agreement, no one knows what the terms were. And as a result the patent troll can claim that they won the case.

In the case of Gooseberry Natural Resources, this patent on the emailing news releases had sort of a fatal flaw as it pertained to myself. And that was is that in the mainstream media world there is only one definition for news release, and it turns out that is Press Release as in PR. Now my company fark deals with news, ostensibly, and as a result we were not in violation of this patent. So case closed, right? Wrong. One of the major problems with patent laws is that in the case .. when you are sued by a patent troll the burden of proof that you did not infringe on the patent is actually on the defendant. Which means you have to prove that you did not infringe on the patent that they are suing you on. And this can take quite a while.

You need to know that the average patent troll defense costs $2 million and takes 18 months, when you win. That is your best case outcome when you get sued by a patent troll. Now I had hoped to team up with some of these larger companies in order to defend against this lawsuit, but one by one they settled out of the case. Even though, and this is important, none of these companies infringed on this patent. Not a one of them. And they started settling out. The reason they settled out is because it is cheaper to settle than to fight the lawsuit, clearly. $2 million cheaper in some cases. And much worse if you actually lose. It also constitutes a massive distraction for management of a company. Especially a small, eight-man shop like my company.

Six months into the lawsuit we finally reached the discovery phase. And in discovery phase we asked the patent troll to please provide screenshots of fark where the infringement of their patent was actually occuring. Now perhaps its because no such screenshots actually existed but suddenly Gooseberry wanted to settle. (mimes putting the phone to his ear) their attorney "Uuuh, yes, my company is having a reorganisation on our end" nevermind the fact that the address lead to a strip mall somewhere in northern LA with no employees (continue mime) "And we'd like to go ahead and close this out. So would you mind giving us your best and final offer?" And my response, "How about NOTHING?" (audience chuckles, brief applause)

We didn't have high hopes for that outcome, but they settled! No counter offer. Now as mentioned before, one of the reasons I can talk to you about this is because there is no non-disclosure agreement on this case. Now, how did that happen? Well durring the settlement process when we got our copy, I struck it. My attorney said, Na.. no chance of that working. It came back signed. Now why? You can call them. They're not under NDA either.

Now what did I learn from this case? Well, three things. First of all, if you can, don't fight the patent, fight the infringement. Patents are very difficult to overturn and infringement is a lot easier to disprove. Secondly, make it clear from the beginning that either you have no money at all, or that you would rather spend the money with your attorney fighting the troll than actually giving them the money. Now the reason this works is because patent trolls are paid a percentage of what they are able to recover in settlement. IF it becomes clear to them that they can not recover any money, they become less interested in perusing the case. Finally, make sure that you tell them that you will make this process as annoying and as painful and as difficult as possible for them. Now this is a tactic that patent trolls are supposed to use on people to get their way. It turns out that because they are paid on contingency it works really really well in reverse. Don't forget that.

So what does all this mean? Well, to kind of sum up, it boils down to one thing. Don't negotiate with terrorists. Patent trolls have done more damage to the United States economy than any domestic or foreign terrorist organization in history every year. And what do they do with that money? They plough it right back into filing more troll lawsuits.

Now this is the point in the talk where I'm supposed to come up with some kind of solution for the patent system, and the problem with that is that there are two very large industry groups that have different outcomes in mind for the patent system. The healthcare industry would like stronger protections for inventors. The high tech industry would like stronger protections for producers. And these goals are not exactly diametrically opposed, but they are at odds. And as a result patent trolls can kind of live in the space in between. So unfortunately I am not smart enough to have a solution for the patent troll problem.

However, I did have this idea. And it was kinda good. And I thought I should patent this. (audience laughs) Behold! Patent infringement via mobile device. Defined as a computer that is not stationary. My solution, award me this patent and I will troll them out of existence. Thank you
 
2012-04-17 08:41:03 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Fight a patent troll for $2 million

or

Hire a couple of veterans who need money to hunt down and kill the trolls for $500K each.

Option #2 would have been more effective. Dead trolls troll no more.


In a baggie? (new window)
 
2012-04-17 09:24:46 PM
tl;dr
 
2012-04-17 09:33:14 PM
I don't understand why Drew hates job creators
He should have thought about all of the freepers he's putting out of business by disallowing these creative geniuses from distributing news by email, now all those FWD FWD FWD'EDED's will have to stop

/SUCIULISM
//OK kind of weak
///Sleepy
 
2012-04-17 09:36:32 PM
Shaman to shaman.
 
2012-04-17 10:02:20 PM
Farking right on man.

In reality I think many of the patent trolls are working for organized crime and terror organizations. Notice how their networks are very much the same, you can never find the actual owners....I think it would be best to require a face to face, on camera AT A FEDERAL BUILDING. Can anyone guess why a federal building?? Poor attorney that actually shows up; his life is ruined.
 
2012-04-17 10:10:37 PM

Pincy: PYROY: For some reason, I always expected Drew to have a lisp and a neck scratching habit.

I was expecting the banjo duel from Deliverance to be playing in the background.


I was betting on a neckbeard and a cold sore.
 
2012-04-17 10:12:19 PM
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1& u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=15&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6,370 ,535&OS=6,370,535&RS=6,370,535

From what I can tell, it doesn't apply to a news aggregator at ALL (The patent is about the delivery of encrypted data followed by the delivery of encrypted keys to guarantee possible regulatory/policy requirements for "simultaneous delivery."), and to the extent it did, it wouldn't be anything more than an invalid "common sense" patent.

So what says you, Theaetus?
 
2012-04-17 10:20:24 PM
I must concede, the actual idea described in the patent is pretty novel.

Too bad it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with fark!
 
2012-04-17 10:53:31 PM

Theaetetus: the prior art "a car" and "electricity" both exist, so the combination is by definition obvious.


Ridiculous. Every patent uses a combination of obvious prior art. "An evacuated glass bulb" is prior art. "A string" is prior art. "Lampblack" is prior art. Put them together, you have a light bulb, which is patentable.
 
2012-04-17 10:58:40 PM
I guess getting TED talks selected for me via Stumble's voting system may have set my bar a little high. But it was okay. Getting feedback from a first hand observer always yields details left out by any subjective scrutiny of the subject at hand.
 
2012-04-17 11:05:21 PM

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

Got a citation for that? Haven't heard that IV is using shells, but I'd be interested to know more.


I got halfway through the thread before caving to post this: When Patents Attack! (new window)

Highly educational, and one of the many reasons I absolutely love TAL. This whole episode is awesome.
/sorry if someone else posted it.
 
2012-04-17 11:16:35 PM

whippersnapper: I got halfway through the thread before caving to post this: When Patents Attack! (new window)


I just listened to that a couple of weeks ago. A rare example of great reporting in this day and age, yet enormously depressing.

The idea that people make billions by buying up tens of thousands of patents on the cheap from bankrupt companies, then just sue anyone who tries to do anything even tangentially related to any of them is utterly maddening. Patents are more and more becoming something that hinders innovation instead of something that fosters it, and nobody has a solution to the problem.
 
2012-04-17 11:26:39 PM
$crew this lawsuit, when are you going to finish coding cybers like you promised drew! It's been like 10+years!
 
2012-04-17 11:31:01 PM
Drew, you know in your heart I submitted this with a better headline. I feel there has been a great infringement in the force.
 
2012-04-17 11:32:16 PM

Man On Pink Corner: Theaetetus: the prior art "a car" and "electricity" both exist, so the combination is by definition obvious.

Ridiculous. Every patent uses a combination of obvious prior art. "An evacuated glass bulb" is prior art. "A string" is prior art. "Lampblack" is prior art. Put them together, you have a light bulb, which is patentable.


Lightbulbs have been around for a long time. I don't think they'd be patentable now, and certainly not with nothing more than the combination you name.
 
2012-04-17 11:37:38 PM

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

Got a citation for that? Haven't heard that IV is using shells, but I'd be interested to know more.

I got halfway through the thread before caving to post this: When Patents Attack! (new window)

Highly educational, and one of the many reasons I absolutely love TAL. This whole episode is awesome.
/sorry if someone else posted it.


Unfortunately, that episode has a lot of the same sort of problems. It's pretty typical for NPR, actually: no real research, no attempt to verify what someone tells them. And I should know - I worked there for 8 years.
Specifically, at one point, they're whining about how outrageous it is that 3 patents have the same exact title! OMG, they're patenting the same thing?! Isn't the first one prior art for the other two?! OMG, how stupid is the USPTO?!!
... but then, 30 seconds of research tells you that two of those are continuations of the first one, they all have the same inventor and same effective filing date, and no, by definition, they're not "prior" art.

The episode is full of that. It's the sort of thing that, if it weren't about software patents, geeks would be shredding it for its inaccuracies.
 
2012-04-17 11:45:42 PM
Specifically, it's like the usual media reports after a shooting where they call everything either a Glock or an assault rifle, and Farkers generally show up to rip them a new one.
 
2012-04-17 11:50:30 PM

SupersonicII: So what says you, Theaetus?


Last I checked, Fark didn't use https or deliver encrypted data to us Farkers. Nor do I think we send confirmation receipts. And even if you were to somehow read those as HTTPS and TCP ACKs, then I don't see delivery of keys after delivering the Fark pages. Etc.
This is just my cursory, entertainment-only review, but as I think I said in the original thread, I don't see how this applies to Fark.
 
2012-04-18 12:11:43 AM
Nice job going all Jack Bauer and shiat, Drew.
 
2012-04-18 12:20:14 AM
Just plain awesome
 
2012-04-18 12:23:13 AM

fragMasterFlash: Nice job going all Jack Bauer and shiat, Drew.


Now that you mention it...

images.pcworld.com

*****

i14.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-18 12:23:21 AM

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

Got a citation for that? Haven't heard that IV is using shells, but I'd be interested to know more.

I got halfway through the thread before caving to post this: When Patents Attack! (new window)

Highly educational, and one of the many reasons I absolutely love TAL. This whole episode is awesome.
/sorry if someone else posted it.

Unfortunately, that episode has a lot of the same sort of problems. It's pretty typical for NPR, actually: no real research, no attempt to verify what someone tells them. And I should know - I worked there for 8 years.
Specifically, at one point, they're whining about how outrageous it is that 3 patents have the same exact title! OMG, they're patenting the same thing?! Isn't the first one prior art for the other two?! OMG, how stupid is the USPTO?!!
... but then, 30 seconds of research tells you that two of those are continuations of the first one, they all have the same inventor and same effective filing date, and no, by definition, they're not "prior" art.

The episode is full of that. It's the sort of thing that, if it weren't about software patents, geeks would be shredding it for its inaccuracies.


OK, but you asked about IV using shell companies, which is clearly happening (as that episode demonstrates).
 
2012-04-18 12:29:31 AM

Yuri Futanari: towatchoverme: I just patented fingers.

No more posts in this thread.

i type wwith m,y p[eenis


Ah, small talk, I see.
 
2012-04-18 12:31:34 AM
Waiting for Patent 7,654,567: A Method for Clandestine Entry into Third-Party Voicemail and Email Accounts (Inventors: Rebekah Brooks, Rupert Murdoch)
 
2012-04-18 12:32:36 AM

Enormous-Schwanstucker: Henceforth and heretofore forthwith I announce my intention to patent the patent pending process of patented patents only as it pertains to the patented process of patenting patents.

Patent...


now my head hurts
 
2012-04-18 12:49:38 AM
It's funny. I was at a conference not long ago and went along with some mechanics/machine industry big shots (which I am not) to dinner. The subject of patents came up. The universal opinion was that they are pure shiat (one guy's words, pretty much everyone nodded or laughed and agreed), for university engineering profs or low-level industry dullards to climb the ranks. Any profitable inventions they either (1) keep a trade secret as long as possible, or if easily discovered or reverse engineered, you just (2) broadly publish it but without important details, and rely on your better market position or in-house talent to win.

Patents are a sad joke, and not just in software. The only reason I file them is to play the funding game (SBIR), and in the remote hope that some idiotic company will pay a lot for them someday. But more and more I think it's really a diseased game that I should opt my company out of entirely.

But make up your own minds, people. Go to Google patents (it's easier and better than the USPTO site), and search on a subject of interest, put in a date range, make it awarded patents only (no mere applications) and look through them and see what you think. Yeah, there are the really silly/stupid patents but look at the ones in field you know and are interested in. For recent awards, is it nonobvious to you? If there are multiple similar-sounding patents, are they significantly different?
 
2012-04-18 12:54:05 AM

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.


Pointing out a handful of what the public perceives as bad patents as evidence of a broken system isn't really persuasive. We've got a 96% final disposition compliance rate over the past fiscal year. So 4% of the entire roughly 1 million final dispositions last year were in error. The final disposition compliance rate has actually increased over the past few years.

Which is funny, cause assuming half of that 4% are allowances, that's 20k patents issued per year that shouldn't be. And yet there's only a handful of troll lawsuits every year.

The amount of funding and increase in examining time required to completely eliminate that 4% final disposition error rate would be ridiculous.
 
2012-04-18 12:58:30 AM
Overall the talk was wracked with pacing and delivery problems. The speaker would definitely benefit from acting classes to bolster his dramatic tone, and he displays a very limited range. His vocal control is only adequate, and stage presence is lacking. He appears to be doomed to a career of stand-in work for his local community theatre, at best; at worst, performing for children like a sad, wizened monkey.
 
2012-04-18 01:12:01 AM
I was disappointed the the phrase, "Jack shiat and go fark yourself" didn't actually appear in the talk.
 
2012-04-18 01:22:58 AM

nickerj1: We've got a 96% final disposition compliance rate over the past fiscal year.


Are you serious? That's the angle you're going with? It's an internal, random sample audit mechanism. That's like saying 96% of police didn't get speeding tickets last year. Not too impressive.

Was the guy who told congress 30% of patents shouldn't be issued lying? Are the people I referred to, industry leaders, just really stupid, or do they not like spending $25k per patent? Were they lying? University guys are way tighter with the pennies than industry and yet they love filing patents.

Why do so many ACTUAL inventors hate the USPTO? Any theories on that? There must be a reason.

And yet there's only a handful of troll lawsuits every year.

Amounting to $80B per year lost wealth to the defendants in those suits (according to Drew's slide 5:34 in talk). $100M in licensing (not counting legal costs) for the JPEG troll alone. Come on.

Pointing out a handful of what the public perceives as bad patents as evidence of a broken system isn't really persuasive.

As I said above, people should look for themselves in subject areas they know. Recent stuff so it's relevant, everything old tends to look obvious. Make up your own minds, don't listen to us hacks with axes to grind and careers on the line.
 
2012-04-18 01:23:43 AM

Toriko: 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.

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?.

I'll do my best to transcribe. Using the listen, pause, type method and doing it quickly so please forgive typos and stuff:

Snip.


Crispflows, that is one of the nicest things I have seen done on here. You deserve a hand for that. +1 interweb for you. I will put you on my favorites list.

Drew, I wish you would have used One Click Purchases as an example of bad patents.
 
2012-04-18 01:25:16 AM
I meant that for Toriko.
 
2012-04-18 09:16:03 AM

Bucky Katt: Enormous-Schwanstucker: Henceforth and heretofore forthwith I announce my intention to patent the patent pending process of patented patents only as it pertains to the patented process of patenting patents.

Patent...

now my head hurts


If it's any consolation I am ok with not saying or writing that...word....ever again. Apologies for hurting your melon.
 
2012-04-18 09:34:29 AM
I got dibs on patents,

I just patented dibs.
 
2012-04-18 09:50:48 AM

Toriko: transcript


Thank you, thank you so very much. I know how much patience and time this requires and it is greatly, greatly appreciated.
 
2012-04-18 09:53:06 AM

Do the needful: I meant that for Toriko.


HA! I know you meant that for Toriko,

/ Although, honestly, If somehow my body decides to defy the known concepts of medicine and spontaneously got me hearing, I'd spend my days transcribing internet videos.
 
2012-04-18 09:54:11 AM
That's exactly how you deal with debt collectors, too.
 
2012-04-18 10:03:46 AM

Christian Bale: Overall the talk was wracked with pacing and delivery problems. The speaker would definitely benefit from acting classes to bolster his dramatic tone, and he displays a very limited range. His vocal control is only adequate, and stage presence is lacking. He appears to be doomed to a career of stand-in work for his local community theatre, at best; at worst, performing for children like a sad, wizened monkey.


I was annoyed by your post then I read your handle.

/ Great job! :D It got a laugh from me.
 
2012-04-18 10:10:35 AM

mrmyxolodian: Nice talk Drew!

Isn't this a good time to finally get a TED tag?


Agreed on both accounts!



I find the lack of TED tag....disturbing for some reason...
 
2012-04-18 11:21:18 AM

MythDragon: Drew: I respectfully disagree...

[moviesmedia.ign.com image 460x280]
...I prefer the stick you only have to beat a patent troll with once


Awesome.
 
2012-04-18 11:45:03 AM

CrispFlows: Do the needful: I meant that for Toriko.

HA! I know you meant that for Toriko,

/ Although, honestly, If somehow my body decides to defy the known concepts of medicine and spontaneously got me hearing, I'd spend my days transcribing internet videos.


I had thought about holding my phone up near the speaker and offering to text it to you. It's scary that something that painfully obvious is overlooked. Sorry to hear about find out about your hearing loss. YouTube should put that software they have that searches out songs you have put in your video to at least try and voice to text subtitles for the hearing impaired. Do you have software that will hook into your soundcard stream? Then it could be used on any site.
 
2012-04-18 12:20:56 PM

Bacontastesgood: nickerj1: We've got a 96% final disposition compliance rate over the past fiscal year.

Are you serious? That's the angle you're going with? It's an internal, random sample audit mechanism. That's like saying 96% of police didn't get speeding tickets last year. Not too impressive.

Was the guy who told congress 30% of patents shouldn't be issued lying? Are the people I referred to, industry leaders, just really stupid, or do they not like spending $25k per patent? Were they lying? University guys are way tighter with the pennies than industry and yet they love filing patents.

Why do so many ACTUAL inventors hate the USPTO? Any theories on that? There must be a reason.

And yet there's only a handful of troll lawsuits every year.

Amounting to $80B per year lost wealth to the defendants in those suits (according to Drew's slide 5:34 in talk). $100M in licensing (not counting legal costs) for the JPEG troll alone. Come on.

Pointing out a handful of what the public perceives as bad patents as evidence of a broken system isn't really persuasive.

As I said above, people should look for themselves in subject areas they know. Recent stuff so it's relevant, everything old tends to look obvious. Make up your own minds, don't listen to us hacks with axes to grind and careers on the line.


You mean the study that pulls numbers out of their ass? And is trying to sell a book about "patent failure"? Also the study considers any non-practicing entities as a "patent troll", which is well... whatever.

AIA is a good step forward. No more swearing behind a reference when I don't give the authors of the reference a chance to swear behind the swear behind. PGPubs have been a huge help. I don't take anything filed pre 2000 seriously just because there's relatively little searchable prior art, or the search wasn't even done electronically.

The problem with litigation, IMO, is that it's too hard to prove invalidity, the assumption of validity should be easier to cast in doubt, and the juries don't understand patent law.

Also looking at "the recent stuff" (I'm assuming you mean patents issued this year) isn't "recent". I'm not sure what the average is, but the stuff I'm allowing now has EFDs ranging from 2003-2005.
 
2012-04-18 12:34:25 PM

ds_4815: fragMasterFlash: Nice job going all Jack Bauer and shiat, Drew.

Now that you mention it...



*****


I knew it wasnt just me, but I didnt want to post that in case I was ridiculed.
 
2012-04-18 12:49:27 PM

Bacontastesgood: Why do so many ACTUAL inventors hate the USPTO? Any theories on that? There must be a reason.


I'm an R&D engineer, and my company files for a lot of patents. For us its a defense mechanism, because almost anything of any complexity you make will unintentionally violate some patent. This goes to the ease at which one can get a patent for something that is obvious. Now that lawyer above was incredulous that the VoIP patent was obvious. But the patent system isn't what ignorant laymen like him see to be obvious. For that one, it would be computer engineers like myself that get to make the judgement. Not only is that patent "obvious," I can not even think of any other way to do it. In fact, any design for VoIP that is NOT like that one, would be the non-obivous patentable innovation.

Large companies use the patent system to squash competition. Large companies often fight each other, simultaneously claiming the other is violating their patent on the same technology. It's a tool for an innovation plutocracy.
 
2012-04-18 01:08:02 PM

impaler: Now that lawyer above was incredulous that the VoIP patent was obvious. But the patent system isn't what ignorant laymen like him see to be obvious.


If you use my handle, then it's easier for me to see replies and respond to them.

You know, throughout this discussion, I've been quite cordial to everyone, even those I disagreed with. It's somewhat telling that you jump to name calling and insults. False ones, at that... I had 10 years of experience as a telecommunications engineer before I shifted to patent law.

The fact that you can't find any evidence from before the filing date of the patent and instead have to rely on your hindsight, more than a decade later, to claim it was supposedly obvious at the time doesn't make me an "ignorant layman". Rather, your abandonment of any actual argument and reliance on ad hominems belies the falsity of your conclusion.
 
2012-04-18 01:09:10 PM

Do the needful: Drew, I wish you would have used One Click Purchases as an example of bad patents.


Did you know that Oreilly took back his $10,000 bounty for prior art for the One-click patent, conceding that it couldn't be found and that the patent was likely valid?
 
2012-04-18 01:20:12 PM
Scratch that last one... He never conceded it, and still claims to have prior art "on his shelf" that would destroy the patent.
 
2012-04-18 01:45:39 PM

Theaetetus: He never conceded it, and still claims to have prior art "on his shelf" that would destroy the patent.


Didn't Fermat patent that excuse 300 years ago?
 
2012-04-18 01:48:30 PM

Theaetetus: 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.


Since Twombly and Iqbal though, aren't the federal pleading requirements closer to fact pleading now-a-days? Couldn't Drew's same goal here have been reached by filing a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss? And if that is the case, why in the world wouldn't the other companies have done this before trying to settle?
 
2012-04-18 02:19:33 PM

Theaetetus: Do the needful: Drew, I wish you would have used One Click Purchases as an example of bad patents.

Did you know that Oreilly took back his $10,000 bounty for prior art for the One-click patent, conceding that it couldn't be found and that the patent was likely valid?


I wasn't aware of that. My point of view is merely as a software developer. To me it is an issue of copyright vs. patents, and I feel strongly that you should not be allowed to patent a piece of software. Software is not something tangible like a door knob. I don't have the ability to explain it, but if I code up a way for you to click a button and checkout and pay for your product, in my mind the only thing I can prevent other people from doing is copying my code line for line. If someone else puts up a button to check out with one click and programs it completely different, the concept is the same but the method is completely different. For instance my door knob. I have no problem with someone protecting their design of a door knob, but they can't patent opening the door. Which as a software developer I feel the patent laws do. Software should be governed by copyright laws. Patents are for tangible items in my opinion. You would never see someone trying to patent a book on murder mystery, but there sits Amazon with a patent on a coding concept.
 
2012-04-18 02:30:07 PM

ramblinwreck: 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)


Yeah, that comment from him on the other story is really wacky.

He takes personal offense to the term "patent troll", saying that Trolls are from Sweden, and he is not, so he can't be a patent troll, and admitting he uses "patent troll" tactics but saying it's unfair to have a pejorative term for them.

In other words Mouhamad A. Naboulsi is a huge patent troll farktard who is scared of any change in the patent system which will upset his gravy train.
 
2012-04-18 02:42:10 PM

Do the needful: My point of view is merely as a software developer. To me it is an issue of copyright vs. patents, and I feel strongly that you should not be allowed to patent a piece of software. Software is not something tangible like a door knob.


Yes, but patents don't require something tangible like a door knob: machine, article of manufacture, composition of matter... or a method. Even business methods are explicitly patentable.

I don't have the ability to explain it, but if I code up a way for you to click a button and checkout and pay for your product, in my mind the only thing I can prevent other people from doing is copying my code line for line.

Yes, and that means that, in reality, you can't do anything to protect your software against anyone but pirates and counterfeiters. If it's commercially worth it to me to copy, then I'll hire a team in Russia or India to reverse engineer it and code their own. It's not copied, so you have no copyright protections.
Copyright is useful if only the original expression is valuable - a specific movie, a specific song, a specific program - which means usually it's going to be helpful only in protecting artistic works. Commercially valuable things, however, are valuable regardless of the specific expression, and in fact are more valuable when they can be used in myriad locations and environments. Copyright simply won't protect your work.

If someone else puts up a button to check out with one click and programs it completely different, the concept is the same but the method is completely different. For instance my door knob. I have no problem with someone protecting their design of a door knob, but they can't patent opening the door. Which as a software developer I feel the patent laws do. Software should be governed by copyright laws. Patents are for tangible items in my opinion. You would never see someone trying to patent a book on murder mystery, but there sits Amazon with a patent on a coding concept.

Yes, but you would see someone trying to patent methods for curing rubber, methods for multiplexing communications, methods for transmitting push email to mobile devices, and yes, methods for a shopping-cartless checkout method, and these protect implementations of the root concepts, regardless of the specific code used.
 
2012-04-18 02:58:38 PM
I'm downloading this right now in (fake Russian accent) GLORIOUS HI-DEFINITION VIDEO (end fake Russian accent)! I'll stream it over to my TV, but I swear if my TV breaks afterwards because it can't handle the enormous amounts of awesome, I'm e-mailing Vizio to tell them to get me a new one!
 
2012-04-18 03:11:14 PM
After watching that, I realized that Drew looked like Jack Bauer in a business suit. So I'm just wondering: did you shoot anybody in the thigh during negotiations?
 
2012-04-18 03:23:07 PM

impaler: I'm an R&D engineer, and my company files for a lot of patents.


For me, that was a rhetorical question (note that it wasn't answered by the person it was directed to). Not at all surprised by what you say. We don't hate the USPTO because it's fun or a hobby, it's because it's farking ruining our work. It's sad and such a waste of time. And despite what was claimed here there are in fact "phone on internet" patents issued STILL. No, not complex management systems or testing devices, there are those too, just farking VOIP.

nickerj1: You mean the study that pulls numbers out of their ass?


I didn't refer to any "study", so I don't know what you mean. If the study was where Drew's numbers came from, take it up with him. He just told a huge audience (including the internet) those things, so you should speak up clearly if those numbers are false.

Also looking at "the recent stuff" (I'm assuming you mean patents issued this year) isn't "recent". I'm not sure what the average is, but the stuff I'm allowing now has EFDs ranging from 2003-2005.

Seven to nine years. You must be proud. Look, I had a job at a shiat place once too, I needed the money and had no other options, but I didn't go around defending their shiattyness on the internet.

This reminds me so much of the thread from a month or so ago with the CPA telling everyone the tax code was perfectly simple, anyone could grasp it, it was written in "plain English".

fallacyaday.com
 
2012-04-18 03:28:19 PM

Theaetetus: Do the needful: I don't have the ability to explain it, but if I code up a way for you to click a button and checkout and pay for your product, in my mind the only thing I can prevent other people from doing is copying my code line for line.

Yes, and that means that, in reality, you can't do anything to protect your software against anyone but pirates and counterfeiters. If it's commercially worth it to me to copy, then I'll hire a team in Russia or India to reverse engineer it and code their own. It's not copied, so you have no copyright protections.
Copyright is useful if only the original expression is valuable - a specific movie, a specific song, a specific program - which means usually it's going to be helpful only in protecting artistic works. Commercially valuable things, however, are valuable regardless of the specific expression, and in fact are more valuable when they can be used in myriad locations and environments. Copyright simply won't protect your work.


While I agree with what you are saying, I think my point of view is just focused on software because that's my background. I see the points here, but think that there is the severe capability to stifle creativity using patents. I have been involved in a couple of copyright issues based on software so it's not completely out of the realm to say that copyright won't protect your software. There is an Onion article about Microsoft patenting ones and zeros that I think did a good job of satirizing the whole issue.

So out of curiosity, how do authors prevent someone from taking their book, changing the names, maybe locations, enough to make it not the same, but using the same framework? That's the problem I see with software. You patent one click shopping for your website, but my website might be able to pull off one click shopping with completely different parameters from a code point of view.

I do realize I am peeing into the wind here, and woefully ill equipped to argue my point. Not to mention trying to type out feelings is almost pointless but it's just a feeling that I have, and I know other do as well based on the uproar when it happened. This will all be interesting to see played out by the people involved as we further head down this digital path. At least we all agree that patent trolls need to be squeezed till they pop.
 
2012-04-18 03:34:33 PM
bravo, Drew!
 
2012-04-18 04:06:25 PM
Good for you, Drew and thank you for fighting the good fight. I'm inspired to get off my lazy ass and finally pony up for TF after being a liter all these years.

/ It's the least I can do.
// I always do the least I can do.
 
2012-04-18 04:19:16 PM
Copyright trolls are just as bad. Except there are statutory damage caps, but even then, they sometimes manage to litigate for more beyond those caps. Had to deal with a copyright troll myself through my own business who wanted to try to sue me for willful copyright infringement. I only ever had initial dealings with the attorney. No intital "hey you are using my shiat. stop using my shiat or I will seek an attorney". It was very random and out of the blue.

The artwork in question was used on my business website and a companion website that was selling t-shirts with specific logos that I had created. Any photos in the artwork were taken by myself or my husband and subsequent edits or manipulation was done solely by me. Not only that, they were attempting to only go after one website with the images in question but not the other that had the t-shirts with the same images. My last communication to the attorney was basically "bring it". And I told the only thing he would get out of me was "a wad of pocket lint, a steaming pile of shiat and two cats that puke all the time."

Once they realized I was a dead end financially, I never heard from them again. I did some tracking on the "client" who was attempting to come after me.... and like Drew's nemesis, this guy's address ended up being an address at some hole in the wall strip mall and no employees as well. I also found out he was originally from India as well. Welcome to the land of the free and opportunistic gravy train of lawsuits.

So Drew is right. If you make it clear up front you have no money, they will, most often, give up in pursuing a lawsuit or be quick to try and settle for anything they think they can get out of you and move on.
 
2012-04-18 05:06:21 PM

Do the needful: I had thought about holding my phone up near the speaker and offering to text it to you. It's scary that something that painfully obvious is overlooked. Sorry to hear about find out about your hearing loss. YouTube should put that software they have that searches out songs you have put in your video to at least try and voice to text subtitles for the hearing impaired. Do you have software that will hook into your soundcard stream? Then it could be used on any site.


Most speech recognition programs typically needs to 'learn' a voice or accent to be more accurate to what they're saying. Even Google's youtube voice recognition program really sucks.

try it some time, Go to youtube, pick a random video and click on the CC button and then click on the transcribe audio button. It's ridiculously inaccurate.

We're at least 5 years or so away from a good voice recognition algorithm.

Unless if there's something I'm not aware of and I'd like to know since it would be pretty relevant to my interests.
 
2012-04-18 05:41:40 PM

CrispFlows: Most speech recognition programs typically needs to 'learn' a voice or accent to be more accurate to what they're saying. Even Google's youtube voice recognition program really sucks.

try it some time, Go to youtube, pick a random video and click on the CC button and then click on the transcribe audio button. It's ridiculously inaccurate.

We're at least 5 years or so away from a good voice recognition algorithm.

Unless if there's something I'm not aware of and I'd like to know since it would be pretty relevant to my interests.


I wasn't aware youtube had that. But I will go give it a try. I know that my phone has "voice recognition" and sometime my textes/texts/texteses look like a total random smattering of words. I sometimes hit send just to confuse the recipient.
 
2012-04-18 06:22:39 PM

impaler: Bacontastesgood: Why do so many ACTUAL inventors hate the USPTO? Any theories on that? There must be a reason.

I'm an R&D engineer, and my company files for a lot of patents. For us its a defense mechanism, because almost anything of any complexity you make will unintentionally violate some patent. This goes to the ease at which one can get a patent for something that is obvious. Now that lawyer above was incredulous that the VoIP patent was obvious. But the patent system isn't what ignorant laymen like him see to be obvious. For that one, it would be computer engineers like myself that get to make the judgement. Not only is that patent "obvious," I can not even think of any other way to do it. In fact, any design for VoIP that is NOT like that one, would be the non-obivous patentable innovation.

Large companies use the patent system to squash competition. Large companies often fight each other, simultaneously claiming the other is violating their patent on the same technology. It's a tool for an innovation plutocracy.


LoL. You don't want to make an inherency argument. You'll lose. I can think of another way to do it. Perform the IP conversion at any other network node other than the central office, like say.... the end user's device.

Under KSR you can also make a finite possible solution argument as well. But that's only really applicable when the differences between prior art and the claimed invention are so small they're pretty much a design choice. And you still have to articulate the finite set of solutions and prove them predictable.
 
2012-04-18 07:09:01 PM

Theaetetus: impaler: Now that lawyer above was incredulous that the VoIP patent was obvious. But the patent system isn't what ignorant laymen like him see to be obvious.

If you use my handle, then it's easier for me to see replies and respond to them.

You know, throughout this discussion, I've been quite cordial to everyone, even those I disagreed with. It's somewhat telling that you jump to name calling and insults


I didn't call you names. I said you were an ignorant layman when it comes to computer engineering. You are. When it comes to law I'm an ignorant layman.
 
2012-04-18 07:14:13 PM

nickerj1: LoL. You don't want to make an inherency argument. You'll lose. I can think of another way to do it. Perform the IP conversion at any other network node other than the central office, like say.... the end user's device.


Not sure by what you mean "ip conversion."
 
2012-04-18 07:18:12 PM

Theaetetus: The fact that you can't find any evidence from before the filing date of the patent and instead have to rely on your hindsight, more than a decade later, to claim it was supposedly obvious at the time doesn't make me an "ignorant layman".


The reason there's no prior art, is not because the idea was so novel, it's because the computational power and networking speed didn't exist yet.
 
2012-04-18 08:03:54 PM

Drew: Oh hey that is handy, I like that one


I knew you were smart.
I didn't know you were brilliant.
/correction. Are brilliant.
//waited 30 years for the internet to exist.
///waited longer for you do make it work correctly.
 
2012-04-18 09:47:49 PM
tear in my eye
 
2012-04-19 12:15:14 AM

impaler: I didn't call you names. I said you were an ignorant layman when it comes to computer engineering. You are. When it comes to law I'm an ignorant layman.


[snort]
I'm not calling you an ignorant layman... I'm just saying that I've designed more complex and greater numbers of computer systems than you've ever touched.

I am, however, calling you a troll, which is why you're going on ignore. You've added absolutely nothing to this conversation. I mean, really:

impaler: The reason there's no prior art, is not because the idea was so novel, it's because the computational power and networking speed didn't exist yet.


... as noted above, Jules Verne is prior art for time machines, even though he had no "computational power and networking speed". Your objections show you have no understanding of what you're talking about. Your insults show you have no willingness to learn. So, you're not worth any more time in either case.
 
2012-04-19 12:17:43 AM
Nickerj1, I'm wondering what art group you're in... There's a significant possibility that I've come up against you. :)
 
2012-04-19 12:36:59 AM

Theaetetus: Do the needful: Drew, I wish you would have used One Click Purchases as an example of bad patents.

Did you know that Oreilly took back his $10,000 bounty for prior art for the One-click patent, conceding that it couldn't be found and that the patent was likely valid?


Bezos is on record (last month's Wired Magazine interview) stating that he would happily give up that patent if the entire patent system went away. He feels the flaws in the system far outweigh the benefits. In short, he recognizes that it may be a valid patent, but that the idea of it is somewhat ridiculous, and it is the system, rather than the benefits of the system, that forces Amazon to file for these kinds of patents.
 
2012-04-19 12:40:55 AM

Theaetetus:
Yes, and that means that, in reality, you can't do anything to protect your software against anyone but pirates and counterfeiters. If it's commercially worth it to me to copy, then I'll hire a team in Russia or India to reverse engineer it and code their own. It's not copied, so you have no copyright protections.


True Fact: Samsung's mobil unit has a guy with the title "Director of Reverse Engineering."

I've been in meetings with him in Korea. I don't think they realize what that means over here.
 
2012-04-19 12:45:09 AM

impaler: Theaetetus: The fact that you can't find any evidence from before the filing date of the patent and instead have to rely on your hindsight, more than a decade later, to claim it was supposedly obvious at the time doesn't make me an "ignorant layman".

The reason there's no prior art, is not because the idea was so novel, it's because the computational power and networking speed didn't exist yet.


You do not need to show an implementation, or even that an implementation is possible in order to secure a patent.
 
2012-04-19 01:02:23 AM

Theaetetus: ... as noted above, Jules Verne is prior art for time machines, even though he had no "computational power and networking speed".


He also doesn't have a patent for time machines.
 
2012-04-19 01:58:54 AM

Rent Party: You do not need to show an implementation, or even that an implementation is possible in order to secure a patent.


And that right there is a big problem with patents.

Perfectly illustrated in the VoIP patent. As they described it, it wouldn't have worked in 95, and it would be a terrible design today.

The patent said to send the data "over TCP or UDP, the protocols of the Internet." Well! Thanks for that suggestion! Except in 95, any time sensitive data stream the size of a voice transmission could have easily been stalled by one packet being dropped or hung up on a router. Even today that type of information isn't sent TCP. Yet not one explanation how to deal with that problem.

Time sensitive information also can't be stalled at the source. No mention of how to time divide the analog stream into usable chunks, or how to deal with delays with compression. They don't even list good compression algorithms to use. If you want 100ms delay at a minimum, not even counting RTT, you have to send at least 10 packets per second. With TCP, that is a minimum of 3.2 kbps from just the overhead of the packets. A sizable chunk in 95.

Oh! But it did say "some other compression" could be used amongst the inadequate compression schemes they listed. Now that is the sort of "non obvious" innovation I expect in a patent!

All that patent stated was analog voice data had to be digitized (no way around that), put into packet to be sent over IP (no way around that), and recomposed to be sent over a PSTN (no way around that).

Again, not only is that patent "obvious," it is literally the only way it can be done. and it doesn't even give a single solution to the many problems that need to be solved to do VoIP! Wait, I take that back. It did say some sort of compression they didn't bother to list could be used.

There's a reason why people that make money off of innovation, such as R&D engineers like myself, even Amazon CEOs, think the patent system is broke, and patent lawyers like Theaetetus think it isn't.

Do I know WTF I'm talking about? this is the abstract to a patent I hold. Provide your patent abstracts Theaetetus.

The present application relates to an implementation of a reliable transport protocol that provides receiver-based congestion control within a computing system. An exemplary system includes a first network device and a second network device within a network. During a handshake procedure, a transmission rate at which data can be sent as well as an acceptable corruptive loss rate for a data path between the first network device and the second network device in the network is determined. The second network device then receives data sent from the first network device at the transmission rate. When the acceptable corruptive loss rate for received data has been exceeded, the second network device determines an amount by which to reduce the transmission rate, and then sends a notification to the first network device indicating the amount by which to reduce the transmission rate for subsequently transmitted data.
 
2012-04-19 02:01:46 AM

impaler: Rent Party: You do not need to show an implementation, or even that an implementation is possible in order to secure a patent.

And that right there is a big problem with patents.


That may well be true, but it has nothing to do with your statement. It means that your statement about why there is no prior art for one-click is wrong.

There is no prior art for one-click because no one had thought about it enough to even write it down.
 
2012-04-19 02:09:42 AM

Rent Party: Bezos is on record (last month's Wired Magazine interview) stating that he would happily give up that patent if the entire patent system went away. He feels the flaws in the system far outweigh the benefits. In short, he recognizes that it may be a valid patent, but that the idea of it is somewhat ridiculous, and it is the system, rather than the benefits of the system, that forces Amazon to file for these kinds of patents.


impaler: I'm an R&D engineer, and my company files for a lot of patents. For us its a defense mechanism


Yep.

PS: By "my company" I mean "the company I work for." I'm an employee, not an owner. I see how that might be misleading after rereading it.
 
2012-04-19 02:11:08 AM

Rent Party: That may well be true, but it has nothing to do with your statement. It means that your statement about why there is no prior art for one-click is wrong.

There is no prior art for one-click because no one had thought about it enough to even write it down.


Your point is true for one-click, but I was talking about VoIP.
 
2012-04-19 02:21:43 AM

Theaetetus: impaler: I didn't call you names. I said you were an ignorant layman when it comes to computer engineering. You are. When it comes to law I'm an ignorant layman.

[snort]
I'm not calling you an ignorant layman... I'm just saying that I've designed more complex and greater numbers of computer systems than you've ever touched.


No, I am calling you an ignorant layman. And I could have easily designed more complex and greater numbers of computer systems than you've ever touched.

It is odd though, even after I said I was an "ignorant layman" with respect to law, you never brought up how "obvious" is a legal definition that an ignorant layman like myself doesn't fully understand (which is entirely reasonable), but rather you try to argue the only viable high level architecture for VoIP wouldn't have been obvious to an engineer in 95, all the while being completely and ignorantly unaware none of the technologies described int the patent (mostly because it was so high-level) have changed significantly since 95.

Code written for a UDP tunnel in 95, would be no different today, with the exception of accounting for NAT, which has shat all to do with that patent.
 
2012-04-19 02:35:46 AM

impaler: Rent Party: That may well be true, but it has nothing to do with your statement. It means that your statement about why there is no prior art for one-click is wrong.

There is no prior art for one-click because no one had thought about it enough to even write it down.

Your point is true for one-click, but I was talking about VoIP.


I will admit not being up on the patents behind VoIP, but the evidence here shows that there isn't anything on record there, either.
 
2012-04-19 02:55:03 AM

Rent Party: I will admit not being up on the patents behind VoIP, but the evidence here shows that there isn't anything on record there, either.


The mentioned ATM patent could be prior art, but I'm going off of obviousness.
 
2012-04-19 08:19:36 PM

Theaetetus: 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 exist. Those are just paraphrased descriptions of what the patent roughly describes, but that's like saying that Toyota's Prius transmission patents are really just patenting "a car, but with electricity!"

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:
Method of connecting a phone call with a computer.
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;
The caller's phone calls a phone number, and the call gets routed to a computer
converting data received from the central office to an Intenet protocol;
The phone call is converted to data with one of those newfangled "modem" thingies
establishing a communication link over said public computer network between said first computer network access port and a remote second computer network access port;
The computer talks to another computer over a network.
placing a second telephone call from said second computer network access port to said second telephone set using a PSTN;
The second computer uses a modem thingy to call out to the destination number
converting data received from the public computer network from Intenet protocol to a PSTN protocol; and
The modem demodulates the data stream back to the phone network
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.
The phone call is now established

There's more limitations there than just "internet ...


Bolded are my simplified descriptions.
It's less limited than just "internet" it's any phone call from a phone that goes through a computer network and has a format conversion step. This is every phone call over the internet, over a LAN, etc.
 
2012-04-20 08:34:43 AM
I just patented bookmarking FARK threads
 
Displayed 335 of 335 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report