Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: PSA, TED Talks, Drew Curtis  
•       •       •

18771 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Apr 2012 at 2:40 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



335 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.comView Full Size


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.


coolest-homemade-costumes.comView Full Size

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.comView Full Size


/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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
2012-04-17 03:27:54 PM  
dumbimages.netView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size


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

blogs.rand.comView Full Size


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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size


/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.netView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size

...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.comView Full Size
 
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  
newyorker.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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]


mojoimage.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.netView Full Size
img1.fark.netView Full Size
img1.fark.netView Full Size
img1.fark.netView Full Size
img1.fark.netView Full Size



img1.fark.netView Full Size
img1.fark.netView Full Size
img1.fark.netView Full Size
img1.fark.netView Full Size
img1.fark.netView Full Size


img1.fark.netView Full Size
img1.fark.netView Full Size
img1.fark.netView Full Size
img1.fark.netView Full Size
img1.fark.netView Full Size


img1.fark.netView Full Size
img1.fark.netView Full Size
img1.fark.netView Full Size
img1.fark.netView Full Size
img1.fark.netView Full Size


img1.fark.netView Full Size
img1.fark.netView Full Size
img1.fark.netView Full Size
img1.fark.netView Full Size
img1.fark.netView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size


*****

i14.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
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