3 ms·

s/patent trolls/copyright trolls/ This case involved copyright, not patents. Copyrights are separate from patents.

by pwg 6y ago

monocasa 6y ago
I agree with the parent. Patent trolls aren't tied to patents because of some love for patents specifically, but because the legal structure allows for the most misuse. They would gladly add another tool to their belt given the chance, as we saw from this case with most of the bad copyright opinions coming from the CAFC, ie. the patent appeals court that's currently stuffed with IP maximalists.
- adolph 6y ago
  Oracle sued Google for copyright and patent infringement. Today's decision has to do with the fair use defence in the copyright portion of the lawsuit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....
  - monocasa 6y ago
    I understand that. I'm saying that the same people that are patent trolls would add misuse of copyright to their set of tools if it became that became a viable option available to them. Today's patent trolls would just be called IP trolls, but they'd be the same set of people.
    - adolph 6y ago
      Copyright is already misused to perform DCMA takedowns of fair use and is a well known option available to all comers. I think the classic example was the Prenda lawsuit firm. Prenda made its money by suing people who allegedly downloaded pornographic films online. Its targets frequently agreed to settlements worth a few thousand dollars rather than facing a courtroom process. These copyright trolling tactics netted the company more than $6 million between 2010 and 2013. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/prenda-law-porn-troll-saga-ends-with-prison-for-founder/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/prenda-law-porn-...
      - monocasa 6y ago
        I mean, that article is about how the Prenda saga ended with the lawyer disbarred and in prison. If his strategies had ended up a valid, legal option we would absolutely see trolls expanding into this. John Steele was testing the waters and got eaten by the deep acting as a warning for how not to go about this. There's some DMCA takedowns and such still, but they aren't quite lucrative enough to show up on patent trolls' radars. Aquila non capit muscas and what have you. A several billion dollar copyright claim like Oracle's passing SCOTUS muster absolutely would have shown up on their radar though.
        adolph 6y ago
        > the same people that are patent trolls would add misuse of copyright to their set of tools Prenda is an example of how misuse of copyright is already in the trolls' toolbox. Since you think about this stuff you might find the latest on the Santa Cruz Operation interesting: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/xinuos-finishes-picking-up-scos-mantle-by-suing-red-hat-and-ibm/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/xinuos-finishes-pick... Xinuos is the company that purchased the remnants of the SCO Group in 2011. The SCO Group, in turn, is a company most famous not for its actual products but for its litigation against IBM and Linux. That litigation began in 2003—partially funded by a very different Microsoft, only five years after the leak of the Halloween documents in which Microsoft acknowledged the "long-term viability" of open source software and discussed strategies to choke it out of the market.
        AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        I looked back at SCO v IBM on Groklaw. SCO wanted to claim copyright infringement over IBM's use of code from Project Monterrey, but they tried to add it too late, and the judge wouldn't let them amend the case yet again. Well, this Xinuos nonsense looks the the copyright version of that exact claim.
        monocasa 6y ago
        And that's probably not going to go anywhere either. Yes, there's the occasional attempt, but it's a set of fringe actions that don't turn out great for the agressor rather than a well trodden playbook that will probably earn you many millions like patent trolls can expect.

s/patent trolls/copyright trolls/ This case involved copyright, not patents. Copyrights are separate from patents.

by pwg 6y ago

s/patent trolls/copyright trolls/ This case involved copyright, not patents. Copyrights are separate from patents.

I agree with the parent. Patent trolls aren't tied to patents because of some love for patents specifically, but because the legal structure allows for the most misuse. They would gladly add another tool to their belt given the chance, as we saw from this case with most of the bad copyright opinions coming from the CAFC, ie. the patent appeals court that's currently stuffed with IP maximalists.

adolph 6y ago
Oracle sued Google for copyright and patent infringement. Today's decision has to do with the fair use defence in the copyright portion of the lawsuit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....
- monocasa 6y ago
  I understand that. I'm saying that the same people that are patent trolls would add misuse of copyright to their set of tools if it became that became a viable option available to them. Today's patent trolls would just be called IP trolls, but they'd be the same set of people.
  - adolph 6y ago
    Copyright is already misused to perform DCMA takedowns of fair use and is a well known option available to all comers. I think the classic example was the Prenda lawsuit firm. Prenda made its money by suing people who allegedly downloaded pornographic films online. Its targets frequently agreed to settlements worth a few thousand dollars rather than facing a courtroom process. These copyright trolling tactics netted the company more than $6 million between 2010 and 2013. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/prenda-law-porn-troll-saga-ends-with-prison-for-founder/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/prenda-law-porn-...
    - monocasa 6y ago
      I mean, that article is about how the Prenda saga ended with the lawyer disbarred and in prison. If his strategies had ended up a valid, legal option we would absolutely see trolls expanding into this. John Steele was testing the waters and got eaten by the deep acting as a warning for how not to go about this. There's some DMCA takedowns and such still, but they aren't quite lucrative enough to show up on patent trolls' radars. Aquila non capit muscas and what have you. A several billion dollar copyright claim like Oracle's passing SCOTUS muster absolutely would have shown up on their radar though.
      - adolph 6y ago
        > the same people that are patent trolls would add misuse of copyright to their set of tools Prenda is an example of how misuse of copyright is already in the trolls' toolbox. Since you think about this stuff you might find the latest on the Santa Cruz Operation interesting: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/xinuos-finishes-picking-up-scos-mantle-by-suing-red-hat-and-ibm/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/04/xinuos-finishes-pick... Xinuos is the company that purchased the remnants of the SCO Group in 2011. The SCO Group, in turn, is a company most famous not for its actual products but for its litigation against IBM and Linux. That litigation began in 2003—partially funded by a very different Microsoft, only five years after the leak of the Halloween documents in which Microsoft acknowledged the "long-term viability" of open source software and discussed strategies to choke it out of the market.
        AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        I looked back at SCO v IBM on Groklaw. SCO wanted to claim copyright infringement over IBM's use of code from Project Monterrey, but they tried to add it too late, and the judge wouldn't let them amend the case yet again. Well, this Xinuos nonsense looks the the copyright version of that exact claim.
        monocasa 6y ago
        And that's probably not going to go anywhere either. Yes, there's the occasional attempt, but it's a set of fringe actions that don't turn out great for the agressor rather than a well trodden playbook that will probably earn you many millions like patent trolls can expect.