4 ms·

My reading is that it's probably related to an extortion attempt where a firm went after VLSI and Intel? https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/blackmail-at-the-usp

My reading is that it's probably related to an extortion attempt where a firm went after VLSI and Intel? https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/blackmail-at-the-uspto-director-issues-2321909/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/blackmail-at-the-uspto-dir...

pclmulqdq 3y ago
After reading the proposed rule changes, I'm not so sure it's bad, and I'm also not sure it hits the EFF in any meaningful way (unless the EFF is hopelessly corrupt, which I guess is a possibility). The biggest thing at issue is that it protects small entities from spurious IPRs (ie IPRs from parties not being sued) from for-profit companies while litigation is ongoing, which seems kind of reasonable. IPRs are expensive, so this is an easy way to either drive a small entity bankrupt during a high-stakes lawsuit or extort a payout. The EFF isn't a for-profit entity, so if they have problems with this rule, it might mean that they are so closely connected to one or more for-profit companies that they are treated as for-profit. That honestly makes the EFF sound suspect. I am assuming this comes from their ideological anti-IP stance rather than corruption, but either way it doesn't come off as an honest take on the new rules.
- dathinab 3y ago
  non-profit is a complicated topic and companies which are not corrupt and "in spirit" act as a non profit might very well count as a for-profit company in many legal situations AFIK
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    So you are okay with the EFF getting a very large donation from an organization involved in litigation with the purpose of harassing the plaintiff and draining their resources? That doesn't sound like "not corrupt in spirit." That sounds like "greenwashed extortion racket."
    - dathinab 3y ago
      See and that is why such a law is a problem because people just twist your words in ways which turn them into something you 100% did not say (or did) and then you can't try to take down a abusive patent.
      - pclmulqdq 3y ago
        It's a good thing that nothing in this rule change prevents the EFF from taking down abusive patents so long as they are not paid by a for-profit company to do it.
      - freejazz 3y ago
        This is exactly what the EFF does. Their statements is so pointed, it's hard to take seriously.
- chabad360 3y ago
  The bigger issue is that it allows NPEs to protect themselves from this process (by declaring themselves as "small" and "inventor-owned"), making it kinda useless.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    that's only true for NPE's that are enforcing patents that are owned by the inventor, and isn't the case for most of what people would call patent trolls. The EFF represents that the majority of patent trolls (which is something that EFF pretends to be the only party that brings patent lawsuits... lol, completely disingenuous on their part) are the kind where there is one person that invented a ton of patents and is enforcing them, but that's not the case. EFF doesn't even pretend to navigate this distinction.
- dannyobrien 3y ago
  The alternative explanation is that EFF, having experienced incredible and well-funded push-back in its attempts to invalidate dumb patents, believes that this rule has been engineered to limit even further the ability of third-parties to challenge unnecessary patents. I mean, I don't want to be rude here, but it feels like "I've read the changes, I don't think they apply to EFF, so I guess the only explanation is that EFF is corrupt", seems a bit of a jump, compared to the simpler explanation that EFF does believe its process to be affected, as argued by the OP link. (Due disclosure: I used to work for EFF. The fight for a reasonable way to overturn bad patents has been, IIRC, a multi-decade uphill battle, against an industry of patent troll adversaries, who did everything from trying to subpoena EFF's membership rolls[1], to suing in Australia to have an EFF blog post taken down[2]. I guess we could have been being paid off by Big Don't Patent Dumb Things, but I defy you to find any of the patents that the EFF has either exposed or organizationally fought that should, in fact, have stayed patentable [3]) [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/eff-fights-patent-troll-demand-eff-podcast-donor-information https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/eff-fights-patent-trol... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/11/court-rules-effs-stupid-patent-month-post-protected-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/11/court-rules-effs-stupi... [3] https://www.eff.org/issues/patents https://www.eff.org/issues/patents
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    > The alternative explanation is that EFF, having experienced incredible and well-funded push-back in its attempts to invalidate dumb patents, believes that this rule has been engineered to limit even further the ability of third-parties to challenge unnecessary patents. I am expressing doubt about whether the EFF actually has a stake in these rule changes, as they very clearly state several times. The article here isn't about generic third parties. It's about the EFF. This rule change also came after someone essentially tried to use an IPR to extort VLSI technology and Intel. The lack of recognition of that extortion and the corresponding limitations on these rules suggests to me that the EFF is not being entirely forthright here. > I mean, I don't want to be rude here, but it feels like "I've read the changes, I don't think they apply to EFF, so I guess the only explanation is that EFF is corrupt", seems a bit of a jump, compared to the simpler explanation that EFF does believe its process to be affected, as argued by the OP link. Holy strawman batman. Read the second paragraph. Also, the rule change is in English. You can actually read the rule change and you will realize that it's a lot more narrow than the EFF is suggesting. In particular, the new rules only limit IPRs for (a) for-profit companies (b) not currently engaged in litigation on patents that are in litigation (c) where said for-profit company is not in that field. All 3 of those have to be satisfied for your IPR to be tossed under those rules. Since the EFF is a non-profit, they should really have no problem with this. If we were to take the EFF's words at face value that this rule change applies specifically to the EFF's ability to fight bad patents, the only real conclusion we can draw is that some of the EFF's funding comes from for-profit companies who want specific patents struck down (invalidating (a) above) or want the EFF to hurt their competitors, which would, in fact, be suggestive of corruption. The other conditions certainly don't apply to the EFF. So that leaves us with one of two alternatives: 1. The EFF actually has no dog in the fight but just doesn't want to have an effective patent system; or 2. The EFF takes money from companies with the purpose of hurting their competitors.
nobodyandproud 3y ago
So damned if this goes through, damned if it doesn’t.
- jpollock 3y ago
  No, the board can combat "extortion" in other ways. Don't allow the initiator to _drop_ the request once started. Initiator pays all costs (I think this is already done?). Then any extortion has to happen up front, and it becomes much more obviously extortion.
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    Unless they have changed it since I learned about this, the loser pays at the PTAB.

pclmulqdq 3y ago

After reading the proposed rule changes, I'm not so sure it's bad, and I'm also not sure it hits the EFF in any meaningful way (unless the EFF is hopelessly corrupt, which I guess is a possibility). The biggest thing at issue is that it protects small entities from spurious IPRs (ie IPRs from parties not being sued) from for-profit companies while litigation is ongoing, which seems kind of reasonable. IPRs are expensive, so this is an easy way to either drive a small entity bankrupt during a high-stakes lawsuit or extort a payout. The EFF isn't a for-profit entity, so if they have problems with this rule, it might mean that they are so closely connected to one or more for-profit companies that they are treated as for-profit. That honestly makes the EFF sound suspect. I am assuming this comes from their ideological anti-IP stance rather than corruption, but either way it doesn't come off as an honest take on the new rules.

dathinab 3y ago
non-profit is a complicated topic and companies which are not corrupt and "in spirit" act as a non profit might very well count as a for-profit company in many legal situations AFIK
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  So you are okay with the EFF getting a very large donation from an organization involved in litigation with the purpose of harassing the plaintiff and draining their resources? That doesn't sound like "not corrupt in spirit." That sounds like "greenwashed extortion racket."
  - dathinab 3y ago
    See and that is why such a law is a problem because people just twist your words in ways which turn them into something you 100% did not say (or did) and then you can't try to take down a abusive patent.
    - pclmulqdq 3y ago
      It's a good thing that nothing in this rule change prevents the EFF from taking down abusive patents so long as they are not paid by a for-profit company to do it.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      This is exactly what the EFF does. Their statements is so pointed, it's hard to take seriously.
chabad360 3y ago
The bigger issue is that it allows NPEs to protect themselves from this process (by declaring themselves as "small" and "inventor-owned"), making it kinda useless.
- freejazz 3y ago
  that's only true for NPE's that are enforcing patents that are owned by the inventor, and isn't the case for most of what people would call patent trolls. The EFF represents that the majority of patent trolls (which is something that EFF pretends to be the only party that brings patent lawsuits... lol, completely disingenuous on their part) are the kind where there is one person that invented a ton of patents and is enforcing them, but that's not the case. EFF doesn't even pretend to navigate this distinction.
dannyobrien 3y ago
The alternative explanation is that EFF, having experienced incredible and well-funded push-back in its attempts to invalidate dumb patents, believes that this rule has been engineered to limit even further the ability of third-parties to challenge unnecessary patents. I mean, I don't want to be rude here, but it feels like "I've read the changes, I don't think they apply to EFF, so I guess the only explanation is that EFF is corrupt", seems a bit of a jump, compared to the simpler explanation that EFF does believe its process to be affected, as argued by the OP link. (Due disclosure: I used to work for EFF. The fight for a reasonable way to overturn bad patents has been, IIRC, a multi-decade uphill battle, against an industry of patent troll adversaries, who did everything from trying to subpoena EFF's membership rolls[1], to suing in Australia to have an EFF blog post taken down[2]. I guess we could have been being paid off by Big Don't Patent Dumb Things, but I defy you to find any of the patents that the EFF has either exposed or organizationally fought that should, in fact, have stayed patentable [3]) [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/eff-fights-patent-troll-demand-eff-podcast-donor-information https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/01/eff-fights-patent-trol... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/11/court-rules-effs-stupid-patent-month-post-protected-speech https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/11/court-rules-effs-stupi... [3] https://www.eff.org/issues/patents https://www.eff.org/issues/patents
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  > The alternative explanation is that EFF, having experienced incredible and well-funded push-back in its attempts to invalidate dumb patents, believes that this rule has been engineered to limit even further the ability of third-parties to challenge unnecessary patents. I am expressing doubt about whether the EFF actually has a stake in these rule changes, as they very clearly state several times. The article here isn't about generic third parties. It's about the EFF. This rule change also came after someone essentially tried to use an IPR to extort VLSI technology and Intel. The lack of recognition of that extortion and the corresponding limitations on these rules suggests to me that the EFF is not being entirely forthright here. > I mean, I don't want to be rude here, but it feels like "I've read the changes, I don't think they apply to EFF, so I guess the only explanation is that EFF is corrupt", seems a bit of a jump, compared to the simpler explanation that EFF does believe its process to be affected, as argued by the OP link. Holy strawman batman. Read the second paragraph. Also, the rule change is in English. You can actually read the rule change and you will realize that it's a lot more narrow than the EFF is suggesting. In particular, the new rules only limit IPRs for (a) for-profit companies (b) not currently engaged in litigation on patents that are in litigation (c) where said for-profit company is not in that field. All 3 of those have to be satisfied for your IPR to be tossed under those rules. Since the EFF is a non-profit, they should really have no problem with this. If we were to take the EFF's words at face value that this rule change applies specifically to the EFF's ability to fight bad patents, the only real conclusion we can draw is that some of the EFF's funding comes from for-profit companies who want specific patents struck down (invalidating (a) above) or want the EFF to hurt their competitors, which would, in fact, be suggestive of corruption. The other conditions certainly don't apply to the EFF. So that leaves us with one of two alternatives: 1. The EFF actually has no dog in the fight but just doesn't want to have an effective patent system; or 2. The EFF takes money from companies with the purpose of hurting their competitors.

nobodyandproud 3y ago

So damned if this goes through, damned if it doesn’t.

jpollock 3y ago
No, the board can combat "extortion" in other ways. Don't allow the initiator to _drop_ the request once started. Initiator pays all costs (I think this is already done?). Then any extortion has to happen up front, and it becomes much more obviously extortion.
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  Unless they have changed it since I learned about this, the loser pays at the PTAB.