8 ms·

Take a stand against patent trolls

60 points by chwolfe 15y ago

wccrawford 15y ago
And will Crutchfield be taking that stand? Because posting an article like this and then refusing to follow your own advice is foolhardy at best.
- rojoca 15y ago
  There is the EFF: https://w2.eff.org/patent/ https://w2.eff.org/patent/
  - wccrawford 15y ago
    That's not the point. Crutchfield wrote that article. I want to know if Crutchfield is following his own advice.
jcromartie 15y ago
I've always wondered: what if you just responded to a patent troll with "screw you" and refused to play their game? What if you just did the absolute minimum and didn't take their bait to reach settlement? What could you face? Could you go to jail?
- sammyo 15y ago
  Not directly but ignoring a request from a court of law can quickly annoy a judge.
- bradleyland 15y ago
  Patents are a civil matter. You'd end up involved in civil litigation, which means you pay an attorney to defend you, or the plaintiff would win by default. Usually, the goal is to settle prior to litigation, because litigation is incredibly expensive. If you litigate and the plaintiff wins the case -- or you don't fight and lose by default -- the plaintiff gets a judgement against you. The judge/jury determine what you must pay to the plaintiff. With a judgement in hand, the plaintiff must start collection proceedings. This is a not-so-straight-forward process, and can take months, if not years, depending upon how evasive the defendant is and how aggressive the plaintiff attorney is. Expect to receive garnishment orders for your pay, as well as other treats, such as having your checking account emptied without notice. Being evasive may also require additional court appearances and court orders. Failure to comply with a court order can result in charges of contempt. This usually means a fine, but can also result in jail time if the act is egregious. At the end of the day, you may find yourself filing bankruptcy, in which case the trustee will be the one after your assets. The whole time this is happening, it's very difficult to operate. Having someone chase you while paying thousands of dollars in attorney fees makes life very difficult. The bottom line is that you cannot simply "refuse to play their game".
- noonespecial 15y ago
  I think your best bet might be to go pro se, where you represent yourself and just file a flurry of extensions, change of venues, discoveries etc. Learn a few rules and then burn the trolls time like crazy. If you have a low income, most states will even waive your court and filing fees.
splat 15y ago
The tacit assumption upon which this argument rests is that the trolls are guaranteed to lose in court (at least after an appeal). While that might be a fair assumption in the most egregious cases, in many circumstances the lower court will not be particularly skilled in patent law and an appeal to a specialized appeals court is by no means certain. A rational businessman might well chose to settle a case even if the probability of losing is just 5% simply because the penalties for patent infringement are so high in comparison to the settlement costs.
- probablyrobots 15y ago
  The OP also argues that the patent could be defeated by a patent review. "Virtually none of the patents that patent trolls buy would be issued today. The vast majority of these patents would not survive a U.S. Patent & Trademark Office patent review. Most were issued during the 1990s when the standards for business process patents were very low." The OP goes on to say that the victims of patent trolls band together to finance the review to make it cheaper than settling.
  - splat 15y ago
    > The OP also argues that the patent could be defeated by a patent review. Yes, but the OP ignores the probability of failure. I'm claiming that even a small probability of failure would be sufficient to deter most businesses from pursuing the OP's advice because the costs of a defeat are so much greater than the costs of a settlement. > The OP goes on to say that the victims of patent trolls band together to finance the review to make it cheaper than settling. I'm not disputing that. The problem I'm pointing out does not have to do with financing the review, but with the fines that are due if you lose the case. Even if you band together to finance the review, if you lose, you have to pay the fines individually.
  - alanthonyc 15y ago
    The MacroSolve patent[1][2] was requested in 2003 and granted in 2010: forms on devices that transmit data to web servers. The USPTO is broken. [1]http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/05/worse-than-lodsys-macrosolves-sues.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/05/worse-than-lodsys-ma... [2]http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,822,816.PN.&OS=PN/7,822,816&RS=PN/7,822,816 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...
BornInTheUSSR 15y ago
I wish someone had a patent on the business process of buying patents just to sue companies that actually try to provide some value to the world and then went around suing these parasitic lowlives.
- kwantam 15y ago
  IBM may well have such a patent very soon. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0244837.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0244837.html
dpcan 15y ago
Who is fighting to keep software patents as-is? Who are we up against? I have NEVER read anything in their favor. If we live in a society where the laws need to be changed, why are they just not changing? What horrors could actually come from abolishing software patents? I just don't understand why this is still an argument. Who are we even arguing against? I never see anyone disagreeing with the argument. It's as if everyone hates the same thing yet it continues to exist and all we have to do is change it. So someone just change it.
- rwmj 15y ago
  There's a big pharma lobby who love patents and lobby for more of the same. This is in itself a problem: there is no separation between types of patents, so we can't (easily) get separate policy on software, business methods, pharma etc. I imagine, for example, no one would particularly complain about software patents if they only lasted for 2 years. But the way it is now, that would mean all patents would expire after 2 years, and the pharma lobby would hate that. Having said all that, best thing is to get rid of all patents, and we'll start again when someone proves that narrow patents in a particular field have a benefit to the economy.
  - tzs 15y ago
    Speaking of pharmaceutical patents, I'd like to see two changes: 1. There should be automatic licensing of the patent to anyone who wishes to make the drug, at a royalty rate on gross sales determined by statute. I'm thinking something around 5%. 2. The patent term should be extended from 20 years to something like 100 years. The idea here is that drug companies invest huge amounts in developing new drugs. Many of these don't even pan out. Some make it into production, and they are patented for 20 years. The drug company then has to charge a lot to make up for that huge investment before the patent expires, and the generics come on market. So, for the first 20 years we consumers pay something like $30-50/month (after insurance--it could be $200 or more a month without insurance) for these drugs until they go generic, then it drops to around $4/month (and that is without insurance!). Under my proposal, the generics would come out right away, for maybe around $5/month, and the original company would make back its investment over a very long term instead of needing to make it back over a relatively short term.
krschultz 15y ago
In order for this to be effective, defendants need to be able to discover other defendants being sued by the particular troll firm for that particular patent. Then the defense can be funded by multiple companies and the defense becomes more formidable. This almost screams for a website - a central place to facilitate matchmaking between companies under suit by a particular troll.
- efsavage 15y ago
  Unfortunately you're not going to see many companies saying "Yeah! We're being sued by that guy too!" because that quickly reduces to "we're being sued!", which never goes over well with investors, shareholders, employees, etc.
ahi 15y ago
I was going to write up a full article, but I'll just post this here instead. I was thinking shame might work a little bit. Most people, even lawyers and patent trolls, think of themselves as being good people. Calling them out directly can have quite an affect. MacroSolve is one of the companies suing iOS developers over forms (http://www.readwriteweb.com/mobile/2011/05/macrosolve-joins-lodsys-in-suing-mobile-app-developers.php http://www.readwriteweb.com/mobile/2011/05/macrosolve-joins-...). Dr. Dale Schoenefeld, a CS professor and bureaucrat at University of Tulsa (http://www.utulsa.edu/offices-and-services/information-technology/about/administration.aspx http://www.utulsa.edu/offices-and-services/information-techn...), is on the board. He probably doesn't care that I think he's a scumbag, but I imagine he might care how he is perceived by students and his colleagues.
ggchappell 15y ago
While we're on the topic of annoyances that get in the way of worthwhile activities, how about websites that publish interesting articles and then stick eye-catching auto-scrolling displays right next to them? It never ceases to amaze me how rarely it seems to occur to web-based publishers that someone might actually want to read their stuff. Well, thank goodness for Readable. Hey, maybe I should patent auto-scrolling ads, and then sue sites like this one. That would be patent trolling with positive social impact as the goal.

60 points by chwolfe 15y ago

And will Crutchfield be taking that stand? Because posting an article like this and then refusing to follow your own advice is foolhardy at best.

rojoca 15y ago
There is the EFF: https://w2.eff.org/patent/ https://w2.eff.org/patent/
- wccrawford 15y ago
  That's not the point. Crutchfield wrote that article. I want to know if Crutchfield is following his own advice.

jcromartie 15y ago

I've always wondered: what if you just responded to a patent troll with "screw you" and refused to play their game? What if you just did the absolute minimum and didn't take their bait to reach settlement? What could you face? Could you go to jail?

sammyo 15y ago
Not directly but ignoring a request from a court of law can quickly annoy a judge.
bradleyland 15y ago
Patents are a civil matter. You'd end up involved in civil litigation, which means you pay an attorney to defend you, or the plaintiff would win by default. Usually, the goal is to settle prior to litigation, because litigation is incredibly expensive. If you litigate and the plaintiff wins the case -- or you don't fight and lose by default -- the plaintiff gets a judgement against you. The judge/jury determine what you must pay to the plaintiff. With a judgement in hand, the plaintiff must start collection proceedings. This is a not-so-straight-forward process, and can take months, if not years, depending upon how evasive the defendant is and how aggressive the plaintiff attorney is. Expect to receive garnishment orders for your pay, as well as other treats, such as having your checking account emptied without notice. Being evasive may also require additional court appearances and court orders. Failure to comply with a court order can result in charges of contempt. This usually means a fine, but can also result in jail time if the act is egregious. At the end of the day, you may find yourself filing bankruptcy, in which case the trustee will be the one after your assets. The whole time this is happening, it's very difficult to operate. Having someone chase you while paying thousands of dollars in attorney fees makes life very difficult. The bottom line is that you cannot simply "refuse to play their game".
noonespecial 15y ago
I think your best bet might be to go pro se, where you represent yourself and just file a flurry of extensions, change of venues, discoveries etc. Learn a few rules and then burn the trolls time like crazy. If you have a low income, most states will even waive your court and filing fees.

splat 15y ago

The tacit assumption upon which this argument rests is that the trolls are guaranteed to lose in court (at least after an appeal). While that might be a fair assumption in the most egregious cases, in many circumstances the lower court will not be particularly skilled in patent law and an appeal to a specialized appeals court is by no means certain. A rational businessman might well chose to settle a case even if the probability of losing is just 5% simply because the penalties for patent infringement are so high in comparison to the settlement costs.

probablyrobots 15y ago
The OP also argues that the patent could be defeated by a patent review. "Virtually none of the patents that patent trolls buy would be issued today. The vast majority of these patents would not survive a U.S. Patent & Trademark Office patent review. Most were issued during the 1990s when the standards for business process patents were very low." The OP goes on to say that the victims of patent trolls band together to finance the review to make it cheaper than settling.
- splat 15y ago
  > The OP also argues that the patent could be defeated by a patent review. Yes, but the OP ignores the probability of failure. I'm claiming that even a small probability of failure would be sufficient to deter most businesses from pursuing the OP's advice because the costs of a defeat are so much greater than the costs of a settlement. > The OP goes on to say that the victims of patent trolls band together to finance the review to make it cheaper than settling. I'm not disputing that. The problem I'm pointing out does not have to do with financing the review, but with the fines that are due if you lose the case. Even if you band together to finance the review, if you lose, you have to pay the fines individually.
- alanthonyc 15y ago
  The MacroSolve patent[1][2] was requested in 2003 and granted in 2010: forms on devices that transmit data to web servers. The USPTO is broken. [1]http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/05/worse-than-lodsys-macrosolves-sues.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/05/worse-than-lodsys-ma... [2]http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,822,816.PN.&OS=PN/7,822,816&RS=PN/7,822,816 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...

BornInTheUSSR 15y ago

I wish someone had a patent on the business process of buying patents just to sue companies that actually try to provide some value to the world and then went around suing these parasitic lowlives.

kwantam 15y ago
IBM may well have such a patent very soon. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0244837.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0244837.html

dpcan 15y ago

Who is fighting to keep software patents as-is? Who are we up against? I have NEVER read anything in their favor. If we live in a society where the laws need to be changed, why are they just not changing? What horrors could actually come from abolishing software patents? I just don't understand why this is still an argument. Who are we even arguing against? I never see anyone disagreeing with the argument. It's as if everyone hates the same thing yet it continues to exist and all we have to do is change it. So someone just change it.

rwmj 15y ago
There's a big pharma lobby who love patents and lobby for more of the same. This is in itself a problem: there is no separation between types of patents, so we can't (easily) get separate policy on software, business methods, pharma etc. I imagine, for example, no one would particularly complain about software patents if they only lasted for 2 years. But the way it is now, that would mean all patents would expire after 2 years, and the pharma lobby would hate that. Having said all that, best thing is to get rid of all patents, and we'll start again when someone proves that narrow patents in a particular field have a benefit to the economy.
- tzs 15y ago
  Speaking of pharmaceutical patents, I'd like to see two changes: 1. There should be automatic licensing of the patent to anyone who wishes to make the drug, at a royalty rate on gross sales determined by statute. I'm thinking something around 5%. 2. The patent term should be extended from 20 years to something like 100 years. The idea here is that drug companies invest huge amounts in developing new drugs. Many of these don't even pan out. Some make it into production, and they are patented for 20 years. The drug company then has to charge a lot to make up for that huge investment before the patent expires, and the generics come on market. So, for the first 20 years we consumers pay something like $30-50/month (after insurance--it could be $200 or more a month without insurance) for these drugs until they go generic, then it drops to around $4/month (and that is without insurance!). Under my proposal, the generics would come out right away, for maybe around $5/month, and the original company would make back its investment over a very long term instead of needing to make it back over a relatively short term.

krschultz 15y ago

In order for this to be effective, defendants need to be able to discover other defendants being sued by the particular troll firm for that particular patent. Then the defense can be funded by multiple companies and the defense becomes more formidable. This almost screams for a website - a central place to facilitate matchmaking between companies under suit by a particular troll.

efsavage 15y ago
Unfortunately you're not going to see many companies saying "Yeah! We're being sued by that guy too!" because that quickly reduces to "we're being sued!", which never goes over well with investors, shareholders, employees, etc.

ahi 15y ago

I was going to write up a full article, but I'll just post this here instead. I was thinking shame might work a little bit. Most people, even lawyers and patent trolls, think of themselves as being good people. Calling them out directly can have quite an affect. MacroSolve is one of the companies suing iOS developers over forms (http://www.readwriteweb.com/mobile/2011/05/macrosolve-joins-lodsys-in-suing-mobile-app-developers.php http://www.readwriteweb.com/mobile/2011/05/macrosolve-joins-...). Dr. Dale Schoenefeld, a CS professor and bureaucrat at University of Tulsa (http://www.utulsa.edu/offices-and-services/information-technology/about/administration.aspx http://www.utulsa.edu/offices-and-services/information-techn...), is on the board. He probably doesn't care that I think he's a scumbag, but I imagine he might care how he is perceived by students and his colleagues.

ggchappell 15y ago

While we're on the topic of annoyances that get in the way of worthwhile activities, how about websites that publish interesting articles and then stick eye-catching auto-scrolling displays right next to them? It never ceases to amaze me how rarely it seems to occur to web-based publishers that someone might actually want to read their stuff. Well, thank goodness for Readable. Hey, maybe I should patent auto-scrolling ads, and then sue sites like this one. That would be patent trolling with positive social impact as the goal.