4 ms·

You can get an up-to-date list of ETC patent cases at https://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-texas/court-txedce/noscat-10/nos-830 https://dockets.justia.com/br

You can get an up-to-date list of ETC patent cases at https://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-texas/court-txedce/noscat-10/nos-830 https://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-texas/court-txedce/n... Just eyeballing it, it does look like new filings have fallen off a cliff. Good. It's also remarkably easy to spot the trolls, e.g. "Spider Search Analytics LLC v. The Home Depot, Inc." and "Spider Search Analytics LLC v. Adidas America, Inc."; the pattern appears to be "Company you've never heard of because they're in the business of patent lawsuits vs. Company you've heard of because they're big enough to sue". Data-mining this to build a real-time list of patent trolls could be fun. One of them probably holds a patent on that though and would sue you for doing it.

rhizome 9y ago
Facts are not copyrightable.
- thephyber 9y ago
  The reason you are getting downvoted is probably twofold. (1) Patents are not copyrights. They are distinct. You can patent a business process, which covers a ton of algorithms. (1) Copyrights can cover the expression of facts. eg. ESPN can't copyright baseball statistics, but they can copyright the {webpages, spreadsheets, books, magazines} they publish which contain nothing more than factual scores / play statistics.
  - rosser 9y ago
    Your second point, as specifically phrased, is probably factually false. SCotUS ruled in Feist Publications Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. [0] that, "Many compilations consist of nothing but raw data — i.e. wholly factual information not accompanied by any original expression. On what basis may one claim a copyright upon such work? Common sense tells us that 100 uncopyrightable facts do not magically change their status when gathered together in one place. … The key to resolving the tension lies in understanding why facts are not copyrightable: The sine qua non of copyright is originality." This is the source of what I've heard called the "phone book doctrine" of copyright (though I'm not finding any hits on that phrase in a cursory search, so it may not be a widely used phrasing). Publications "which contain nothing more than factual scores / play statistics" per se contain no originality, and are consequently not copyrightable. (IANAL) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....
  - rhizome 9y ago
    Court proceedings are public records and so who is filing suit is just a short parse away. Not sure what patents would be infringed there, but I'm willing to be educated.
    - admax88q 9y ago
      You underestimate the absurdity of many software patents.
      - rhizome 9y ago
        I assure you I do not.
    - vonmoltke 9y ago
      > Court proceedings are public records and so who is filing suit is just a short parse away. You woefully underestimate the amount of work required to do that, and the cost of acquiring those documents.
      - rhizome 9y ago
        Pretty sure EDTX is on PACER.
posterboy 9y ago
> big enough to be sued fixed this for you, but not really, because usually it's the small firms that may break under the pressure of suits.
- jacobush 9y ago
  Big companies sue small ones to break them. (For reasons, like nipping potential competition in the bud for instance.) Patent trolls sue large ones because there is meat on their bones.
- taejo 9y ago
  The cake is too pretty to eat. The child is too full to eat. Both are fine. Human language is like that.
  - posterboy 9y ago
    What is "that", or rather how? "broken"? Language is inherently underspecific, yes, but that's the opposite of "fine". The passive is well understood, therefore it should be used. It just baffles me how coders could glance over this. I probably would't have said anything if the topic wasn't a legal matter where precise language is paramount. Suddenly you are framed for cannibalistic tendencies.
    - thaumaturgy 9y ago
      FWIW I agree that your version is more readable, and since I'd like my writing to not suck someday, I appreciate the edit. Suggesting edits to others' comments on HN is tricky though because it will usually at best be off-topic for the conversation, and at worst lead to several off-topic comments, as in this case. For that reason they tend to get downvoted.
      - posterboy 9y ago
        Well it clarified for me that the focus on big firms was apparently true.

rhizome 9y ago

Facts are not copyrightable.

thephyber 9y ago
The reason you are getting downvoted is probably twofold. (1) Patents are not copyrights. They are distinct. You can patent a business process, which covers a ton of algorithms. (1) Copyrights can cover the expression of facts. eg. ESPN can't copyright baseball statistics, but they can copyright the {webpages, spreadsheets, books, magazines} they publish which contain nothing more than factual scores / play statistics.
- rosser 9y ago
  Your second point, as specifically phrased, is probably factually false. SCotUS ruled in Feist Publications Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. [0] that, "Many compilations consist of nothing but raw data — i.e. wholly factual information not accompanied by any original expression. On what basis may one claim a copyright upon such work? Common sense tells us that 100 uncopyrightable facts do not magically change their status when gathered together in one place. … The key to resolving the tension lies in understanding why facts are not copyrightable: The sine qua non of copyright is originality." This is the source of what I've heard called the "phone book doctrine" of copyright (though I'm not finding any hits on that phrase in a cursory search, so it may not be a widely used phrasing). Publications "which contain nothing more than factual scores / play statistics" per se contain no originality, and are consequently not copyrightable. (IANAL) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._R....
- rhizome 9y ago
  Court proceedings are public records and so who is filing suit is just a short parse away. Not sure what patents would be infringed there, but I'm willing to be educated.
  - admax88q 9y ago
    You underestimate the absurdity of many software patents.
    - rhizome 9y ago
      I assure you I do not.
  - vonmoltke 9y ago
    > Court proceedings are public records and so who is filing suit is just a short parse away. You woefully underestimate the amount of work required to do that, and the cost of acquiring those documents.
    - rhizome 9y ago
      Pretty sure EDTX is on PACER.

posterboy 9y ago

> big enough to be sued fixed this for you, but not really, because usually it's the small firms that may break under the pressure of suits.

jacobush 9y ago
Big companies sue small ones to break them. (For reasons, like nipping potential competition in the bud for instance.) Patent trolls sue large ones because there is meat on their bones.
taejo 9y ago
The cake is too pretty to eat. The child is too full to eat. Both are fine. Human language is like that.
- posterboy 9y ago
  What is "that", or rather how? "broken"? Language is inherently underspecific, yes, but that's the opposite of "fine". The passive is well understood, therefore it should be used. It just baffles me how coders could glance over this. I probably would't have said anything if the topic wasn't a legal matter where precise language is paramount. Suddenly you are framed for cannibalistic tendencies.
  - thaumaturgy 9y ago
    FWIW I agree that your version is more readable, and since I'd like my writing to not suck someday, I appreciate the edit. Suggesting edits to others' comments on HN is tricky though because it will usually at best be off-topic for the conversation, and at worst lead to several off-topic comments, as in this case. For that reason they tend to get downvoted.
    - posterboy 9y ago
      Well it clarified for me that the focus on big firms was apparently true.