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.

(Reuters)   Intellectual Ventures: the countries biggest patent trolling firm with almost $6 billion in assets, got cocky enough to try to shake down Wall Street. Big mistake   (reuters.com ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, COF, Wall Street, non-practicing entity, Eastern District of Virginia, Microsoft Corp., patent case, Bank of America  
•       •       •

10893 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 May 2014 at 1:52 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2014-05-08 11:24:07 AM  
8 votes:
God help me, I'm actually rooting for the banks.
2014-05-08 01:56:05 PM  
4 votes:
Should say "country's." Come on, subby.
2014-05-08 11:26:20 AM  
4 votes:
U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga in Virginia dismissed the lawsuit against Capital One after finding that the two IV patents remaining in the case were abstract ideas that could not be patented

The patent examiners that approve crap like this need to be fired.
2014-05-08 02:26:27 PM  
2 votes:

filter: So Microsoft and Sony send protection money? Is that why they buy in? Despicable-- they give IV more resources to fark other companies over.


No it's worse than that. Sony, Microsoft, Apple and other members oof the so called "Rockstar consortium" got into the Patent trolling business a few years back buying a huge patent portfolio from  dying telecom Nortel for a few billion precisely and explicitly for the purpose of using ti to hammer Andriod-based smartphones (MS gets $10 for every Samsung phone sold in the US thanks to a settlement between the two companies)

The real reason Google bought Motorola was so it too would have a giant binder of patents to lend Android device makers when they get sued by the Rockstar folks (the way patent litigation almost literally works these days is plaintiffs slap down their binder of patents , defendants slap down their binder of patents they can counter-sue with, and somebody measures.  The guy with the smaller binder cuts a check based on the size difference -not really joking BTW)

IV is basically Rockstar's kissing cousin.  While farking over Google is Rockstar's  Raison D'etre  some of the Rockstar partners realized there wad damn good money in patent trolling and invested/created Intellectual ventures to do it more broadly.  To its credit I see that Apple has announced it is no longer an IV investor and is cutting ties with the company
2014-05-08 01:56:50 PM  
2 votes:
So Microsoft and Sony send protection money? Is that why they buy in? Despicable-- they give IV more resources to fark other companies over.
2014-05-08 12:00:55 PM  
2 votes:

Theaetetus: Marcus Aurelius: U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga in Virginia dismissed the lawsuit against Capital One after finding that the two IV patents remaining in the case were abstract ideas that could not be patented

The patent examiners that approve crap like this need to be fired.

Why? One of the patents was granted in October 2009, before the Supreme Court's Bilski decision, and way before Prometheus v. Mayo or any of the other more recent 101 cases. The Examiners were following the law as it existed at the time. They're to be fired for approving things based on the official guidelines they're handed?


If you think that I know bupkiss about patent law particulars, you are correct.  Thank you for the insight.

I guess who we really need to fire are the Congresscritters that allowed ideas to be patented to begin with, but if there's any left it wouldn't matter much anyway.  People will vote R or D regardless.
2014-05-08 04:38:50 PM  
1 vote:
Well, this is certainly one of the most intelligent discussions on this topic I've seen on Fark.
2014-05-08 02:55:44 PM  
1 vote:

Theaetetus: As an analogy, contracts have multiple requirements - mutual agreement between the parties, an exchange of consideration, definiteness of terms, and a remedy available at law for a breach. Invalidating patents because they lack patent eligible subject matter, rather than lacking novelty, nonobviousness, or sufficient description, is like invalidating a contract because it lacks a legal remedy for breach. I mean, really? That should come up in like .1% of cases, if that.


Wait, what? If the subject matter isn't patentable, then the patent should never have been granted. Period. It's more like invalidating a contract because the contract is about something illegal (e.g., one person entering into slavery, or a contract to commit a crime).

And yes, ideally they should come up less. But given that I've had patent lawyers tell me they could get a patent on a flyer announcing a stand-up comedy show, it seems that there are a lot of patents out there which cover ineligible subject matter.
2014-05-08 02:21:18 PM  
1 vote:
Ya, go after the one group that surgeons think should tone down the hubris, looking for an easy payout. Nice lawyering there, Lou.
2014-05-08 02:13:24 PM  
1 vote:

Theaetetus: TuteTibiImperes: As far as other patents go the common sense approach would be to reform the rules of what is and isn't patentable (remove the ability to patent broad/general concepts or processes)...


That's already been removed. Under 35 USC 101, you can't patent an abstract idea. But that - and your proposal - simply raises another question: what's an abstract idea, or what's a "broad/general concept"? How you do distinguish something that's abstract or broad from something that's patent eligible? Is it just a "I know it when I see it" (which is the current, and awful, state of the law), or can you come up with a bright line test?


There's also the issue of whether the CAFC will actually follow any precedents that come down from the Supreme Court. They have a tendency to be ... less than willing to follow those.
2014-05-08 02:12:17 PM  
1 vote:
Seems like the big mistake here was filing the claim in another state besides Texas.
2014-05-08 02:07:12 PM  
1 vote:
The biggest hole in the patent system, is that  it allows these kind of practices to appear. A business idea that surrounds on only hoarding patents, and then charges /sues/harasses anyone that may turn them into useful products and so. No wonder why production costs are high these days, it is because some unproductive harassers  are there.
2014-05-08 01:56:44 PM  
1 vote:
This is like a knife fight between Justin Bieber and Kanye West. I don't know who to root for, but if both died a painful death, that would suit me just fine.
2014-05-08 12:44:28 PM  
1 vote:

Theaetetus: True, and both the R's and D's are pro-patent. About the only real anti-patent movement is the Pirate Party.


The Pirate Party is pretty reasonable with their stance on Copyright Reform, but I think their stance on abolishment of patents is a bit extreme.  I do like their ideas for banning pharmaceutical patents and shifting the burden for developing new drugs to governments who can then share the research freely.  With as much as the US Government spends on drugs through Medicare Part D alone it might be a money saver.

As far as other patents go the common sense approach would be to reform the rules of what is and isn't patentable (remove the ability to patent broad/general concepts or processes), and to set the bar much higher for software patents and 'look and feel' patents.

Mark Cuban also has some good ideas about a 'use it or lose it' clause that would help break down patent troll firms.  Make it such that for a company to hold onto a patent they have to either have a product on the market that makes use of it or be actively developing one.
2014-05-08 12:11:20 PM  
1 vote:

Marcus Aurelius: Theaetetus: Marcus Aurelius: U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga in Virginia dismissed the lawsuit against Capital One after finding that the two IV patents remaining in the case were abstract ideas that could not be patented

The patent examiners that approve crap like this need to be fired.

Why? One of the patents was granted in October 2009, before the Supreme Court's Bilski decision, and way before Prometheus v. Mayo or any of the other more recent 101 cases. The Examiners were following the law as it existed at the time. They're to be fired for approving things based on the official guidelines they're handed?

If you think that I know bupkiss about patent law particulars, you are correct.  Thank you for the insight.


No problem. Here's the short layman's summary:
Patents have multiple requirements to be valid, each coming from a different statute:
35 USC 101: patents must be directed to eligible subject matter
35 USC 102: patents must be novel
35 USC 103: patents must be non-obvious
35 USC 112: patents must be sufficiently well described
The patents here were not invalidated because they were not novel or were obvious (i.e. violating 102 or 103)... That takes evidence, in the form of prior art, and a real in-depth examination of the claims. Instead, they were invalidated because they weren't directed to eligible subject matter, violating 101.

Now, the prior art that was available during examination by the patent office is the same prior art available now (it's not like "prior" has changed), so if the Examiner had simply missed some stupid-obvious reference or even saw one and was all "nah, that's different because this one is pink and that's blue", then it's pretty reasonable to blame them for incompetence.
But this is all about 101 and what the meaning of an "abstract idea" is. Back then, a method was not abstract if it had a sufficiently concrete or tangible effect in the real world... Since then, that's changed to "something is not abstract if it is tied to a specific machine or transforms something" and then even further changed to "something is not abstract if Justice Thomas can understand it". So, the law really has changed, and something that was perfectly fine a decade ago may not be now.

I guess who we really need to fire are the Congresscritters that allowed ideas to be patented to begin with...

Blame Thomas Jefferson. He was the first patent examiner.

... but if there's any left it wouldn't matter much anyway.  People will vote R or D regardless.

True, and both the R's and D's are pro-patent. About the only real anti-patent movement is the Pirate Party.
2014-05-08 11:10:46 AM  
1 vote:
"We are disappointed with the court's decision and are considering our options," Finocchio said.

His nose then grew an inch longer.
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and 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