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.

(Ars Technica)   Newegg trolled   (arstechnica.com) divider line 141
    More: Sad, newegg, TQP Development, Erich Spangenberg, chief legal officers, quiet period, SSL  
•       •       •

17980 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Nov 2013 at 1:41 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-26 01:43:04 PM  
so the guy who invented... you know what, fark it, the jury is stupid and therefore potato.
 
2013-11-26 01:44:41 PM  
Goddamitsomuch
 
2013-11-26 01:45:50 PM  
Pfff, its texas.
Surprised they even acknowledge the internet exists and is not a machine of the devil.
 
2013-11-26 01:46:47 PM  
TQP's single patent is tied to a failed modem business run by Michael Jones, formerly president of Telequip. TQP has acquired more than $45 million in patent licensing fees by getting settlements from a total of 139 companies since TQP argues that its patent covers SSL or TLS combined with the RC4 cipher, a common Internet security system used by retailers like Newegg.

This is so wrong it makes me sick to my stomach.
 
2013-11-26 01:47:07 PM  
doesn't that jury know? Don't feed the trolls
software.informer.com
 
2013-11-26 01:47:18 PM  

Best Princess Celestia: Pfff, its texas.
Surprised they even acknowledge the internet exists and is not a machine of the devil.


More like they didn't want to lose their bread and butter of patent trolls filing in their court system.
 
2013-11-26 01:47:22 PM  
*stealing is stealing.

*except when companies do it
 
2013-11-26 01:48:04 PM  
Seems like you either get to have your case regarding a highly technical patent decided by either a group of lay people too dumb to get out of jury duty or a judge who finished college before computers were available outside of the science departments of universities and the military.
 
2013-11-26 01:49:51 PM  
The problem with letting a case go to trial is that you then end up with a trial verdict.  Newegg knows this and feel comfortable rolling the dice most of the time as the actual trolls fear court far more than Newegg does.
 
2013-11-26 01:50:52 PM  

SmackLT: TQP's single patent is tied to a failed modem business run by Michael Jones, formerly president of Telequip. TQP has acquired more than $45 million in patent licensing fees by getting settlements from a total of 139 companies since TQP argues that its patent covers SSL or TLS combined with the RC4 cipher, a common Internet security system used by retailers like Newegg.

This is so wrong it makes me sick to my stomach.


It's disgusting rent-seeking. What has TQP contributed?
 
2013-11-26 01:52:05 PM  
Guess they shouldn't have rested their case prematurely.
 
2013-11-26 01:55:14 PM  
What a bunch of bullshiat.  I hope the idiots on that jury get their eyes gouged out by rabid wolverines on PCP and then blindly stumble into a wood chipper.
 
2013-11-26 01:57:12 PM  
Ah, E.D. Tex. Where patent trolls go to get paid.
 
2013-11-26 01:58:32 PM  

Kuroshin: Guess they shouldn't have rested their case prematurely.


They provided all the technical information. I think they didn't bother trying to emotionally please the jury, maybe they knew they'd have to appeal.
 
2013-11-26 01:59:19 PM  

idesofmarch: What a bunch of bullshiat.  I hope the idiots on that jury get their eyes gouged out by rabid wolverines on PCP and then blindly stumble into a wood chipper.


that's harsh man. Poor jury doesn't make the rules, congress does. Now if your suggesting the wolverine treatment for our esteemed representatives...
 
2013-11-26 02:02:20 PM  

ltdanman44: *stealing is stealing.

*except when companies do it


They have no control over SSL. But feel free to call them and ask them about licencing it. I'm sure they'll get a kick out of it. SSL is in the public domain, they're just exploiting the fact that people (especially in TX) have no idea what they're hearing when people talk about digital cryptography and security systems.
 
2013-11-26 02:03:58 PM  
I understand this district in Texas has a court system that tends to favor the patent holder who is the plaintiff, which is why a lot of patent trolls file there. Do the judges and juries in this district also tend to lean towards the patent holder's side in these cases?
 
2013-11-26 02:04:28 PM  
Zeros and ones.
 
2013-11-26 02:05:06 PM  

Robin Hoodie: idesofmarch: What a bunch of bullshiat.  I hope the idiots on that jury get their eyes gouged out by rabid wolverines on PCP and then blindly stumble into a wood chipper.

that's harsh man. Poor jury doesn't make the rules, congress does. Now if your suggesting the wolverine treatment for our esteemed representatives...


Jury nullification: because some laws are bullshiat.
 
2013-11-26 02:09:29 PM  

Kinek: It's disgusting rent-seeking. What has TQP contributed?


Now now, good sir, we have gone round and round here long enough that i know that you know that the rent seeking behavior is purposeful here, as rent seeking is in fact the fundamental way property is monetized.  This is the whole point of the system, even when it is working correctly.  As to contribution?  Once more, in a general sense, disclosure of an invention, is the purpose, so as to preclude wheel re-invention.  The fact that others go ahead and re-invent the wheel anyway is irrelevant.  If i recall correctly, you are against this system even if it functioned 100% effectively (which i agree it does not).  So i shall read your shock and dismay as yet another iteration on this theme.

Of course, as to the specifics of this case, my knowledge is a bit thin.  But considering the litigants and that it went to trial, this is likley to be less ridiculous a decision than many.  If i am wrong on the above paragraph, let me know what the particular issues you have are.

Good to see you around!

/i assume theaetetus will be along at some point with his prosecutor pimp swagger and we shall have us a good ol fashioned fark-fight.*
//*i.e. generally snarky discourse and booze
 
2013-11-26 02:11:23 PM  
ARE YOU F*CKING KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
 
2013-11-26 02:15:07 PM  
How the hell do you assert a patent on a car when the best you could come up with is a sled?
 
2013-11-26 02:15:11 PM  

Target Builder: I understand this district in Texas has a court system that tends to favor the patent holder who is the plaintiff, which is why a lot of patent trolls file there. Do the judges and juries in this district also tend to lean towards the patent holder's side in these cases?


Cases tend to file in Marshall because they have very little drug crime.  In Federal Court, criminal matters always bump civil matters in the schedule, meaning a high crime district is slow as molases.  E.D. Tex., being relatively warm and easy to navigate as well as being low on the whole crime thing, is a pretty attractive "rocket docket."

As to bias, i have heard, earnestly, that it is both terribly pro plaintiffs and rather pro defendants.  The truth is, it appears it was possibly biased, maybe, a while ago.  But it isnt now.  I think real answer is: generally if you win, it was a fair and impartial jury, and if you lose it was terribly biased to the other side.
 
2013-11-26 02:15:48 PM  
are you farking kidding

fark that jury
 
2013-11-26 02:17:22 PM  
Is violence against the court called for?
 
2013-11-26 02:23:14 PM  
Needs a Texas tag just for this shiat
 
2013-11-26 02:23:24 PM  
The five-state theory of Texas described, somewhat accurately.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNgMtK1ska8

The patent trolls, like Louie Gohmert, make their nest in East Texas.
 
2013-11-26 02:24:42 PM  
www.tofugu.com
 
2013-11-26 02:24:52 PM  

Snapper Carr: Ah, E.D. Tex. Where patent trolls go to get paid.

Target Builder: I understand this district in Texas has a court system that tends to favor the patent holder who is the plaintiff, which is why a lot of patent trolls file there. Do the judges and juries in this district also tend to lean towards the patent holder's side in these cases?


Yes and no... A lot of patent cases get filed in the Eastern District of Texas because it's a boring-as-fark place and nothing else ever happens there, so there are no federal drug trafficking cases, for example, that get pushed ahead of the patent case on the docket (criminal cases have priority). For example, if you filed your patent infringement case in the Southern District of New York today, you might get a trial this decade. Maybe. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
So, as a result, the judges actually have a ton of experience with patent cases and can speed through the various motions and discovery required in the early stages.

Are the courts more plaintiff-friendly? Not really. There's about a 55% win rate for plaintiffs overall, and a 67% win rate at trial (defendants tend to win at summary judgement more than they do at trial). That's pretty comparable to every other district.

Also, since the patent owner is typically bringing the suit, they have the choice to not file ones they think they won't win. As a result, you'd expect to see a rate over 50%. For example, when the government charges people with a crime and brings them to trial, they have a win rate around 70%. Does this mean that juries are massively government-biased? Well, yes, but that's beside the point. Also, it's not the only factor - rather, it's more that if the DA thinks he or she only has a 10% chance of getting a conviction, they'll just drop the charges. Same thing with a patent owner deciding whether to bring a case.
 
2013-11-26 02:25:12 PM  
DISREGARD

I am a bundle of sticks.
 
2013-11-26 02:27:06 PM  

Theaetetus: Stuff


Jeez Theae, way to prattle on about stuff already addressed up-thread.  You are becoming more of a litigator every day.

:)

Now lets stop with this silliness and debate the meaning of patents when Kinek gets his ass back online.
 
2013-11-26 02:29:04 PM  

Robin Hoodie: idesofmarch: What a bunch of bullshiat.  I hope the idiots on that jury get their eyes gouged out by rabid wolverines on PCP and then blindly stumble into a wood chipper.

that's harsh man. Poor jury doesn't make the rules, congress does. Now if your suggesting the wolverine treatment for our esteemed representatives...


Except in this case they ignored the law.  The guy WHO INVENTED THE TECHNOLOGY testified about it at trial.  You know prior art.......
 
2013-11-26 02:29:06 PM  

Kinek: SmackLT: TQP's single patent is tied to a failed modem business run by Michael Jones, formerly president of Telequip. TQP has acquired more than $45 million in patent licensing fees by getting settlements from a total of 139 companies since TQP argues that its patent covers SSL or TLS combined with the RC4 cipher, a common Internet security system used by retailers like Newegg.

This is so wrong it makes me sick to my stomach.

It's disgusting rent-seeking. What has TQP contributed?


Apparently, the knowledge that basically makes e-commerce work.
 
2013-11-26 02:30:46 PM  

meanmutton: Kinek: SmackLT: TQP's single patent is tied to a failed modem business run by Michael Jones, formerly president of Telequip. TQP has acquired more than $45 million in patent licensing fees by getting settlements from a total of 139 companies since TQP argues that its patent covers SSL or TLS combined with the RC4 cipher, a common Internet security system used by retailers like Newegg.

This is so wrong it makes me sick to my stomach.

It's disgusting rent-seeking. What has TQP contributed?

Apparently, the knowledge that basically makes e-commerce work.


They didn't invent it....
 
2013-11-26 02:31:25 PM  
If it's impossible to discourage patent trolls through legal means, do it through extra-legal means. Just saying...
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-11-26 02:31:36 PM  
idesofmarch

Jury nullification is primarily a criminal law concept. A not guilty jury verdict can not be overturned on the grounds that it was wrong. In civil cases a judge can enter judgment for either side if undisputed facts dictate the verdict. The judge can order a retrial if there is either side was treated unfairly or the jury obviously messed up.
 
2013-11-26 02:33:05 PM  

Warlordtrooper: meanmutton: Kinek: SmackLT: TQP's single patent is tied to a failed modem business run by Michael Jones, formerly president of Telequip. TQP has acquired more than $45 million in patent licensing fees by getting settlements from a total of 139 companies since TQP argues that its patent covers SSL or TLS combined with the RC4 cipher, a common Internet security system used by retailers like Newegg.

This is so wrong it makes me sick to my stomach.

It's disgusting rent-seeking. What has TQP contributed?

Apparently, the knowledge that basically makes e-commerce work.

They didn't invent it....


Oh, yeah, smartie, then why did they get a jury to give them tens of millions of dollars?
 
2013-11-26 02:33:40 PM  

meanmutton: Warlordtrooper: meanmutton: Kinek: SmackLT: TQP's single patent is tied to a failed modem business run by Michael Jones, formerly president of Telequip. TQP has acquired more than $45 million in patent licensing fees by getting settlements from a total of 139 companies since TQP argues that its patent covers SSL or TLS combined with the RC4 cipher, a common Internet security system used by retailers like Newegg.

This is so wrong it makes me sick to my stomach.

It's disgusting rent-seeking. What has TQP contributed?

Apparently, the knowledge that basically makes e-commerce work.

They didn't invent it....

Oh, yeah, smartie, then why did they get a jury to give them tens of millions of dollars?



Because juries are comprised of people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
 
2013-11-26 02:36:00 PM  
This doesn't sound like a typical troll case where she'll company X patents say the idea of selling stuff online without actually developing anything. In this case the article makes it sound like the guy actually did invent the technology not just patent a concept.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-11-26 02:36:30 PM  
Is this the patent in question? 5412730

Filing date April 23, 1992. Publication date May 2, 1995. Based on either 17 years from issue or 20 years from filing it should have expired by now.

It was really filed in 1989 (hence the search for really old prior art) but you can game the system for a few years before the clock starts running.
 
2013-11-26 02:38:33 PM  

meanmutton: Kinek: SmackLT: TQP's single patent is tied to a failed modem business run by Michael Jones, formerly president of Telequip. TQP has acquired more than $45 million in patent licensing fees by getting settlements from a total of 139 companies since TQP argues that its patent covers SSL or TLS combined with the RC4 cipher, a common Internet security system used by retailers like Newegg.

This is so wrong it makes me sick to my stomach.

It's disgusting rent-seeking. What has TQP contributed?

Apparently, the knowledge that basically makes e-commerce work.


They've contributed... nothing. 

Ars Technica story

TQP exists solely to sue. Jones' original tech company went underwater some time ago, but that Spangenberg douchebag (who really should be put on Anonymous' target list) reached a deal with him to set up a shell corporation (TQP) that would sue companies over use of the patent. Jones receives a ~2% cut of any settlements or deals the shell corp makes. They've earned $45 million thus far.

They produce no product. They do no engineering. They do no marketing. They do nothing. 

Jones and Spangenberg's lives should be made as miserable as possible, as soon as possible. I'm a senior in college studying IT with a few ideas of my own, and the idea of having one of them ruined as soon as I begin makes me want to consider moving to a country where this sort of insanity doesn't persist.
 
2013-11-26 02:39:16 PM  

ZAZ: idesofmarch

Jury nullification is primarily a criminal law concept.


So does that mean a jury in a case like this can't invoke jury nullification?  Or just that it normally doesn't?  Because if I'm on that jury, I don't give a shiat what anybody says - trolls lose, case closed. Their business model needs to be purged like the malignant tumor it is.
 
2013-11-26 02:41:16 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Because juries are comprised of people too stupid to get out of jury duty.


I agree with the sentiment, but it is unfortunate that you insulted people in the same sentence where you used "comprised of" incorrectly (hint: you wanted "composed of").
 
2013-11-26 02:42:11 PM  
Not even the creator could save Newegg?  They are forsaken.
 
2013-11-26 02:44:24 PM  

Fonaibung: Warlordtrooper: Because juries are comprised of people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

I agree with the sentiment, but it is unfortunate that you insulted people in the same sentence where you used "comprised of" incorrectly (hint: you wanted "composed of").


Probably, I was always a math, science type person, English was never my strong suit.

I mean this decision just hurts my mind.  The guy who invented the technology came in to testify on their behalf and they still lost?  How does that even happen.  TQP has no claim due to the prior art.
 
2013-11-26 02:46:12 PM  
That sucks. Looks like I'll have to give Newegg some money this Black Friday to show my support. I could use the upgrade to 16 gigs of RAM, anyway.
 
2013-11-26 02:46:23 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Robin Hoodie: idesofmarch: What a bunch of bullshiat.  I hope the idiots on that jury get their eyes gouged out by rabid wolverines on PCP and then blindly stumble into a wood chipper.

that's harsh man. Poor jury doesn't make the rules, congress does. Now if your suggesting the wolverine treatment for our esteemed representatives...

Except in this case they ignored the law.  The guy WHO INVENTED THE TECHNOLOGY testified about it at trial.  You know prior art.......


I think you misread yesterday's article. The guy who invented  a technology testified about it at trial. Newegg claimed that his technology  in combination with another technology invalidated the patent. No one (except you) is claiming that he invented everything that's in the patent.
 
2013-11-26 02:47:04 PM  
America has the best court system that money can buy.
 
2013-11-26 02:47:16 PM  

ZAZ: Filing date April 23, 1992. Publication date May 2, 1995. Based on either 17 years from issue or 20 years from filing it should have expired by now.


The suit is for activities that occurred while the patents were still valid.
 
2013-11-26 02:48:36 PM  

ZAZ: Filing date April 23, 1992. Publication date May 2, 1995. Based on either 17 years from issue or 20 years from filing it should have expired by now.


That dates back to the 17-from-issue regime, so it expired in 2012. However, (i) the suit could have been filed prior to May last year; or (ii) even though they can't accrue any damages past May 2012, patent infringement has a 6 year statute of limitations.
 
Displayed 50 of 141 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report