7 ms·
EFF is countersuing a patent troll that wants its name removed from a blog post
- baobrain 10y agoCan we change the link to the EFF press release? https://www.eff.org/press/releases/patent-owner-cant-use-foreign-court-order-block-eff-speaking-out https://www.eff.org/press/releases/patent-owner-cant-use-for...
- aurelianito 10y agoI prefer the information to be given by a neutral third party.
- taurath 10y agoAd supported news is not neutral - it is beholden to whatever it thinks will get the most attention (whether that be quality journalism or clickbait - I don't know where the register stands on that). Just the concept of neutrality in any media is inherently false.
- jacquesm 10y agoBut it's hopefully a little bit more neutral than either of the parties embroiled in a lawsuit.
- stordoff 10y agoFair, but they have significantly less of a reason to be biased than one of the parties to the case.
- kristianc 10y agoYet if it was subscription supported you can guarantee there would be people complaining about posting paywalled links. We need to get news somehow. Leave it to the reader to judge any bias or otherwise - but a media source is less likely to have a firm stance either way than one of the parties to the lawsuit.
- __s 10y agoWe almost need a kind of multiplex blogspam posts. A post saying as little as possible to maintain neutrality: 'Patent troll makes case vs EFF, EFF counter sues.' Then list in alphabetical order source material (Patent troll's claim, EFF's claim) This does have the issue of giving minority positions more exposure. ie climate change denial links may be split 50% despite strong preference in the scientific community. The reader has to recognize which links have substance for themselves
- kristianc 10y agoSounds like you just described Techmeme.
- ndesaulniers 10y agoThat's an interesting viewpoint; one I can agree with. Thanks for sharing.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jwkane 10y agoThis register.co article isn't exactly the gold standard for neutrality.
- greglindahl 10y agoThe Register is well known for its snark, which generally involves not being neutral at all.
- bigbugbag 10y agoAs neutral third party do not exist in the real world and specifically the register isn't such a thing, maybe you should consider getting your information at the source.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- musesum 10y agoModest proposal: put all patent license fees into a 17 year escrow. Fees returned if patent overturned. Publish a list of patent #'s and escrow amounts. Allow for class action suits to represent the licensees. Sever and nullify any clauses in existing agreements that would prevent a licensee from participating in a class action suit. IANAL; merely a defensive patent holder.
- CobrastanJorji 10y agoDownside: an individual who made an important discovery and patented her invention and licensed her technology to large companies would not be able to access her money for 17 years.
- caf 10y agoPresumably you'd be able to get a loan secured against the escrowed revenue. If this actually happened you'd no doubt see specific tailored financial solutions for this.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- FireBeyond 10y agoLike you can get a loan or advance against annuities and settlements now? Where the _best_ of these will take fifty per cent as a fee? Sounds a great deal.
- glitcher 10y agoDo they not know of the Streisand effect? Well, maybe this company will become known as the Australian version of it.
- YokoZar 10y agoThey don't have any reason to actually care. How does bad publicity hurt them?
- Qwertious 10y agoYes, but they're a shell company that doesn't lose anything if they're bankrupted.
- bigbugbag 10y agoI suppose they could just make a new company under a new name, sell the patents portfolio to the new company and can this one. There's not much to lose in this for a patent troll.
- throwawaytroll 10y agoI suppose it could hurt them (and no amount of shell companies would make a difference) if the individuals behind this were to be exposed. I didn't want to pay the $40 to pull the company record, but all their info is super public on linkedin anyway: https://imgur.com/a/SVVYK https://imgur.com/a/SVVYK So they either don't care or they're idiots.
- BrandoElFollito 10y agoLooks like it is a family business of sorts (at least according to the names of the various C-something titles)
- chrismcb 10y agoOn the surface of seems that the stupid patent, filed in 1999 has plenty of prior art... How did the patent not get overturned?
- phkahler 10y agoUnfortunately this story is the start of the process for how patents get overturned...
- mcguire 10y agoThe original EFF blog post: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/stupid-patent-month-storage-cabinets-computer https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/stupid-patent-month-st...
- mcguire 10y agoDoes anyone know anything behind the injunction from the Supreme Court of South Australia? https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/04/14/eff-lawsuit-oz-judge-injunction.pdf https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/04/14/eff-lawsuit-oz-judge-injun...
- caf 10y agoIt's an interlocutory order, made on the same day its application was heard, with no representation for the defendant appearing. It's the kind of order that's made before a case is actually decided, to limit some ongoing harm until the case can actually be heard. The plaintiff agrees to compensate the defendant if the final judgement doesn't uphold the interlocutory order.
- FiloSottile 10y ago> We further demand that you make immediate arrangements for any links to the article to be removed from the world wide web including any and all other websites which references the infringing material. If you do not do this, we will be forced to do so at your expense. Does that... involve paying Vupen to break into my web server, or what? Because I'd love to see them try to "remove links from the world wide web".
- simcop2387 10y agoLikely it'll mean paying lawyers to file false dmca requests in the end. Or something similar with cease and desist. I think the intent is they're saying we'll sue everyone and make you pay for it.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- ndesaulniers 10y agoTime to renew my annual donation to the EFF. https://supporters.eff.org/donate/button https://supporters.eff.org/donate/button
- killbrad 10y agoThis is one of the reasons I support the EFF.
- zvpxdlk 10y agoWhy is there not more media coverage on that district in eastern texas that allows all these patent trolls to exist?
- Viper007Bond 10y agoJohn Oliver did a great segment on it a while back: https://youtu.be/3bxcc3SM_KA https://youtu.be/3bxcc3SM_KA
- rhizome 10y agoI don't know that it would ever be stated so explicitly, but at the end of the day there's absolutely nothing anybody can do about the EDTX courts without major legislation, so there's no news there.
- ajb 10y agoActually it's presently before the supreme court: http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/argument-analysis-justices-hear-horror-stories-venue-patent-litigation/ http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/argument-analysis-justices... But the argument report doesn't look promising.
- __s 10y agoIn this case the patent troll went to Australia
- kirillzubovsky 10y agoThe SEO on this article is going to be fabulous. The words "patent troll" will be forever tied to this company. Good work.
- clort 10y agoWhile this judges ruling is patently inapplicable to the EFFs website (different jurisdiction, different rules), I wonder if it could cause problems personally to any of the staff (more likely: the directors) if they wished to visit Australia in the future, can they be held responsible when entering the jurisdiction?
- janwillemb 10y ago> [the troll] asked for [EFF's] "Stupid Patent of the Month" post to be taken down. Remarkably, an Australian judge agreed Does anyone know why the judge agreed? I'm all for taking down trolls, but if a judge agreed, maybe there's more to the story than meets the eye.
- Operyl 10y agoI think it was a default ruling. People are speculating that the EFF didn't bother with defending on this one, since it was in Australian courts.