8 ms·

EFF asks appeals court to “shut down the Eastern District of Texas”

292 points by mmastrac 11y ago

afarrell 11y ago
I am curious how much money would it cost to run an advertising campaign in this district and how likely it would be to influence jurors. I suspect that the jury selection process would prevent it from having much effect.
- jules 11y ago
  Companies spend lots of money there, so they believe it does work. Samsung built an ice skating facility directly in front of the courthouse. http://mix931fm.com/yes-you-can-ice-skate-in-east-texas/ http://mix931fm.com/yes-you-can-ice-skate-in-east-texas/
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    So what you're saying is frackers need to find oil in the area, ruin the water table, thereby driving citizens of East Texas out of the venue... We're all one event away from being supervillains.
    - bitJericho 11y ago
      That's what's happened in western north Dakota! lol
WildUtah 11y ago
28 USC §1400 (b), the patent venue statute is designed to prevent places like East Texas from running national tech policy and to protect small companies from predation by troll megacorps. "Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." The CAFC (the patent appeals court) judicially abolished the statute in its VE Holdings decision so that patent lawyers would get richer and more powerful. That's the motive behind many CAFC decisions since patents are the root of the judges' power and power -- as is predictable -- has corrupted. Now the new case asks them to revise that decision and follow the law as written. Let's see if the new Obama judges are more honest than their predecessors. (The verdict so far: maybe.)
- joeblow99 11y ago
  the verdict so far: NFW
- monochromatic 11y ago
  It's not anywhere near that simple. The issue is that Congress amended §1391 to broaden the definition of a defendant's residence. The CAFC then interpreted the two statutory provisions together according to their plain wording. Decent discussion here: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2007/04/patent_jurisdic.html http://patentlyo.com/patent/2007/04/patent_jurisdic.html edit: I thought your name looked familiar. We discussed this a couple of months ago, and you're still spouting the same incorrect nonsense.
  - wtallis 11y ago
    Your willingness to ignore the crucial fact of how the CAFC and Eastern District of Texas rely on the judicially broadened concept of personal jurisdiction does not give you excuse to take that tone with your accusations. The CAFC is decidedly not interpreting statute according to its plain wording when it interprets a clause intended to limit judicial powers as having no limiting effect. There's definitely room for reasonable disagreement with your position.
    - monochromatic 11y ago
      Read the blog post I linked, then read VE Holdings, then get back to me. Or maybe you've read them, and your position is that Congress just didnt know what personal jurisdiction meant when it rewrote 1391.
      - mnarayan01 11y ago
        > Or maybe you've read them, and your position is that Congress just didnt know what personal jurisdiction meant when it rewrote 1391. You say that like it's improbable.
      - wtallis 11y ago
chris_wot 11y ago
So let me get this straight - if you do business in East Texas, you are more likely to be sued for spurious patent violations, and more likely to lose when this occurs. But if you don't do any business in East Texas, then you will get sued in a less biased court. So is it feasible to not do any business in East Texas?
- WildUtah 11y ago
  Google and Apple won't let you block your app from app store requests in Texas. Fixed internet connections can be traced by IPGeo databases so you can block connections from Texas, but mobile carriers obfuscate the IP with NAT so you can't block mobile web access. So you can try but probably not.
  - cmaggard 11y ago
    Couldn't you simply stipulate in your ToS that if you reside in that area that you are not allowed to use said service?
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Or something along the way that's already done? When I buy software I sometimes see a message like this: "This software costs X (+Y of some tax if you're from Texas).".
    - dhimes 11y ago
      I did exactly that in software (web site) that is nearing release- so no results yet.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Your app could require GPS permissions to start, and refuse to run if it's in Texas boundaries. I don't think Google and Apple could oppose that, as you can argue you're attempting to operate within the bounds of (patent) law.
    - 11y ago
grendelt 11y ago
Hello from the "Eastern District of Texas" (I live 27 miles from the US Courthouse in Marshall). The lack of educated citizens with critical thinking skills is overwhelming. This is why juries hand down absurd findings in patent troll cases. "All this technical mumbo jumbo just makes my head spin". I've sat on mock juries for corporate law firms before (IP/patent law is interesting and easy money to sit for mock jury) and more than once I've skewed their findings because of my technical/electronics background. During the breaks the folks that are participating are total block heads that don't understand even the most elementary explanations given. I now often wonder if patent cases should be trial by jury or trial by subject matter expert panels. The lack of technical literacy shows that the populace is woefully unprepared to serve as jurors in these cases.
- WildUtah 11y ago
  The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is the specialized patent appeals court. It was created in 1982. Before that the regular appeals courts heard patent appeals. The idea was that subject matter experts and scientist-judges would be better able to adjudicate complicated patent appeals. What we got from the CAFC was the explosion of software patents, regular messes of abusive patent rules, an overwhelming bias against small companies accused of infringement by monster corps with patent portfolios, legalization of patents based on abstract ideas, and regular rebukes by the Supreme Court that has to try to rein them in with regular 9-0 decisions that the CAFC then finds ways to ignore. The problem is that anyone who could get appointed to such a court is probably personally invested in the power of the patent system. His history is probably in mega corps with thousands of patents to block innovative disruptors. Such a judge's future prestige and professional respect is determined by how much he supports omnipotent and unlimited patents with little review of validity. So these judges are inevitably judging their own careers in every case. They are as biased and corrupt as you might expect anyone to be when asked to judge the limits of his own power and influence. No. Cases should not be tried by juries of subject matter experts. That just leads to more corruption. We do need better rules that make it harder to abuse the system, but we're better off with ordinary judges and juries making the decisions, even though they sometimes screw it up through ignorance. At least they aren't screwing it up by malice like certain federal judges.
whyIndeed 11y ago
I don't understand why this is an EFF fight. From what I gather the line of reasoning is something like: > eff cares about technology, in particular electronics and communication. > sometimes electronic systems, and the software these systems employ, may be patented. > patents in general may foster innovation, but when misused, they may also stifle innovation. > technological innovation, generally speaking, is something the EFF cares about. > in texas, there exists a group of political activists colluding together to willfully stifle technological innovation through the careful misuse of U.S. patent law. > although the manner in which these political malefactors operate may be subtle and convoluted, there is an obvious sense of the goals behind their actions, and those goals threaten to harm, not just a select group of actors mired in interpersonal grudge matches, but every participant in the American civil justice system, by establishing dangerous precedents with long reach and odd side effects that may be weaponized to create widespread strife and conflict amongst anyone coming up against an opponent with the time, money, and the awareness of said precedents. > how the EFF is so certain of such intent among these political actors remains unclear, but because of this, the EFF is willing to invest not-insignificant resources in confronting and disrupting their malignant behaviors. > strategically speaking, should certain specific legal decisions come to pass in an American jurisdiction, it could spell disaster for technological innovation as a whole (really?), based on the implicit logical corollaries established by carefully chosen legal battles won by this group. > for this reason the EFF seeks to challenge the validity of their actions and their authority to operate in general. Is that about right?
- wtallis 11y ago
  It's simpler than that, and doesn't rely on any far-fetched conspiracy theories. Nobody's actually trying or colluding to stifle innovation, they're just trying to abuse patent law to make money, with gross disregard for the purposes of patent law or the broader consequences of their actions. Perverse incentives can produce much of the same harms as a broad conspiracy, without the impracticality and implausibility of collusion. The Eastern District of Texas and the Federal Circuit have both undergone regulatory capture, which can be incredibly damaging to the public interest even when the regulators' intentions are quite innocent.
jokoon 11y ago
How is that possible to have that important part of patent litigation happen only in this part of the US?

292 points by mmastrac 11y ago

I am curious how much money would it cost to run an advertising campaign in this district and how likely it would be to influence jurors. I suspect that the jury selection process would prevent it from having much effect.

jules 11y ago
Companies spend lots of money there, so they believe it does work. Samsung built an ice skating facility directly in front of the courthouse. http://mix931fm.com/yes-you-can-ice-skate-in-east-texas/ http://mix931fm.com/yes-you-can-ice-skate-in-east-texas/
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  So what you're saying is frackers need to find oil in the area, ruin the water table, thereby driving citizens of East Texas out of the venue... We're all one event away from being supervillains.
  - bitJericho 11y ago
    That's what's happened in western north Dakota! lol

WildUtah 11y ago

28 USC §1400 (b), the patent venue statute is designed to prevent places like East Texas from running national tech policy and to protect small companies from predation by troll megacorps. "Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." The CAFC (the patent appeals court) judicially abolished the statute in its VE Holdings decision so that patent lawyers would get richer and more powerful. That's the motive behind many CAFC decisions since patents are the root of the judges' power and power -- as is predictable -- has corrupted. Now the new case asks them to revise that decision and follow the law as written. Let's see if the new Obama judges are more honest than their predecessors. (The verdict so far: maybe.)

joeblow99 11y ago
the verdict so far: NFW
monochromatic 11y ago
It's not anywhere near that simple. The issue is that Congress amended §1391 to broaden the definition of a defendant's residence. The CAFC then interpreted the two statutory provisions together according to their plain wording. Decent discussion here: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2007/04/patent_jurisdic.html http://patentlyo.com/patent/2007/04/patent_jurisdic.html edit: I thought your name looked familiar. We discussed this a couple of months ago, and you're still spouting the same incorrect nonsense.
- wtallis 11y ago
  Your willingness to ignore the crucial fact of how the CAFC and Eastern District of Texas rely on the judicially broadened concept of personal jurisdiction does not give you excuse to take that tone with your accusations. The CAFC is decidedly not interpreting statute according to its plain wording when it interprets a clause intended to limit judicial powers as having no limiting effect. There's definitely room for reasonable disagreement with your position.
  - monochromatic 11y ago
    Read the blog post I linked, then read VE Holdings, then get back to me. Or maybe you've read them, and your position is that Congress just didnt know what personal jurisdiction meant when it rewrote 1391.
    - mnarayan01 11y ago
      > Or maybe you've read them, and your position is that Congress just didnt know what personal jurisdiction meant when it rewrote 1391. You say that like it's improbable.
    - wtallis 11y ago

chris_wot 11y ago

So let me get this straight - if you do business in East Texas, you are more likely to be sued for spurious patent violations, and more likely to lose when this occurs. But if you don't do any business in East Texas, then you will get sued in a less biased court. So is it feasible to not do any business in East Texas?

WildUtah 11y ago
Google and Apple won't let you block your app from app store requests in Texas. Fixed internet connections can be traced by IPGeo databases so you can block connections from Texas, but mobile carriers obfuscate the IP with NAT so you can't block mobile web access. So you can try but probably not.
- cmaggard 11y ago
  Couldn't you simply stipulate in your ToS that if you reside in that area that you are not allowed to use said service?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Or something along the way that's already done? When I buy software I sometimes see a message like this: "This software costs X (+Y of some tax if you're from Texas).".
  - dhimes 11y ago
    I did exactly that in software (web site) that is nearing release- so no results yet.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Your app could require GPS permissions to start, and refuse to run if it's in Texas boundaries. I don't think Google and Apple could oppose that, as you can argue you're attempting to operate within the bounds of (patent) law.
  - 11y ago

grendelt 11y ago

Hello from the "Eastern District of Texas" (I live 27 miles from the US Courthouse in Marshall). The lack of educated citizens with critical thinking skills is overwhelming. This is why juries hand down absurd findings in patent troll cases. "All this technical mumbo jumbo just makes my head spin". I've sat on mock juries for corporate law firms before (IP/patent law is interesting and easy money to sit for mock jury) and more than once I've skewed their findings because of my technical/electronics background. During the breaks the folks that are participating are total block heads that don't understand even the most elementary explanations given. I now often wonder if patent cases should be trial by jury or trial by subject matter expert panels. The lack of technical literacy shows that the populace is woefully unprepared to serve as jurors in these cases.

WildUtah 11y ago
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is the specialized patent appeals court. It was created in 1982. Before that the regular appeals courts heard patent appeals. The idea was that subject matter experts and scientist-judges would be better able to adjudicate complicated patent appeals. What we got from the CAFC was the explosion of software patents, regular messes of abusive patent rules, an overwhelming bias against small companies accused of infringement by monster corps with patent portfolios, legalization of patents based on abstract ideas, and regular rebukes by the Supreme Court that has to try to rein them in with regular 9-0 decisions that the CAFC then finds ways to ignore. The problem is that anyone who could get appointed to such a court is probably personally invested in the power of the patent system. His history is probably in mega corps with thousands of patents to block innovative disruptors. Such a judge's future prestige and professional respect is determined by how much he supports omnipotent and unlimited patents with little review of validity. So these judges are inevitably judging their own careers in every case. They are as biased and corrupt as you might expect anyone to be when asked to judge the limits of his own power and influence. No. Cases should not be tried by juries of subject matter experts. That just leads to more corruption. We do need better rules that make it harder to abuse the system, but we're better off with ordinary judges and juries making the decisions, even though they sometimes screw it up through ignorance. At least they aren't screwing it up by malice like certain federal judges.

whyIndeed 11y ago

I don't understand why this is an EFF fight. From what I gather the line of reasoning is something like: > eff cares about technology, in particular electronics and communication. > sometimes electronic systems, and the software these systems employ, may be patented. > patents in general may foster innovation, but when misused, they may also stifle innovation. > technological innovation, generally speaking, is something the EFF cares about. > in texas, there exists a group of political activists colluding together to willfully stifle technological innovation through the careful misuse of U.S. patent law. > although the manner in which these political malefactors operate may be subtle and convoluted, there is an obvious sense of the goals behind their actions, and those goals threaten to harm, not just a select group of actors mired in interpersonal grudge matches, but every participant in the American civil justice system, by establishing dangerous precedents with long reach and odd side effects that may be weaponized to create widespread strife and conflict amongst anyone coming up against an opponent with the time, money, and the awareness of said precedents. > how the EFF is so certain of such intent among these political actors remains unclear, but because of this, the EFF is willing to invest not-insignificant resources in confronting and disrupting their malignant behaviors. > strategically speaking, should certain specific legal decisions come to pass in an American jurisdiction, it could spell disaster for technological innovation as a whole (really?), based on the implicit logical corollaries established by carefully chosen legal battles won by this group. > for this reason the EFF seeks to challenge the validity of their actions and their authority to operate in general. Is that about right?

wtallis 11y ago
It's simpler than that, and doesn't rely on any far-fetched conspiracy theories. Nobody's actually trying or colluding to stifle innovation, they're just trying to abuse patent law to make money, with gross disregard for the purposes of patent law or the broader consequences of their actions. Perverse incentives can produce much of the same harms as a broad conspiracy, without the impracticality and implausibility of collusion. The Eastern District of Texas and the Federal Circuit have both undergone regulatory capture, which can be incredibly damaging to the public interest even when the regulators' intentions are quite innocent.

jokoon 11y ago

How is that possible to have that important part of patent litigation happen only in this part of the US?