7 ms·
I work for EFF and wrote the text of this blog post and action. On here I speak only for myself, but a couple points I want to add. 1) EFF has only filed one I
by joemullin 3y ago
I work for EFF and wrote the text of this blog post and action. On here I speak only for myself, but a couple points I want to add.
1) EFF has only filed one IPR ever, (linked in the post), against Personal Audio, to invalidate a patent asserted against podcasting. This was crowd-funded by hundreds of people. It required years of litigation beyond the IPR process itself.
2) Patent challenges should be open to all. There's nothing wrong with a "for profit" org challenging a government monopoly - it's a public benefit. A good patent will often hold up (many do), a wrongly granted one will usually go down.
Please read the examples in the post of (very) small businesses, individuals, and nonprofits (Wikimedia) who were protected because another organization, often a for-profit, filed a successful IPR.
It's truly upside down world when USPTO is concerned its very limited monopoly-challenging services are being overused by "for-profits" that file "serial" petitions. In my career I have analyzed hundreds of shell companies that have (each!) sent out dozens or hundreds of threat letters and lawsuits demanding patent royalty payments (patent trolls). Guess what? They're ALL for-profit. They ALL file serial petitions with the hopes of a fast payout.
We have limited means to challenge this extortionate business model, and now USPTO is trying to drastically limit one of the best options. I hope they reconsider, and we ask for your support.
Thanks to all and I appreciate the discussion here.
- pclmulqdq 3y agoIPRs are pretty useful for challenging bad patents and should be very broad. However, I found myself in favor of this change, and honestly questioning the EFF's motives given how strong and personal (speaking specifically to the EFF's ability to challenge patents, not a generic third party) your expressed opinions were in this piece. I am very sympathetic to the argument that Unified Patents and other folks who offer "IPR insurance" now can't fight bad patents, but hopefully if the rules pass they will be able to convert to either a non-profit or a financing model that allows them to sidestep this rule. Also, are you aware of the argument in favor of this change? In a recent case, a patent troll used an IPR claim to attempt to extort a patent owner when that patent was going through active litigation. Limiting IPRs from for-profit entities not practicing in the field (also a requirement in the rule change) when small companies are actively suing someone else honestly sounds reasonable in light of this. See: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ipr2021-01064_paper_108_20221017_director_order.pdf https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ipr2021-...
- nabakin 3y agoI would also like a response from @joemullin on this
- joemullin 3y agoI'm aware that there are allegedly "bad" IPRs including the OpenSky case. The alleged "extortion" here is that VLSI, a non-practicing entity, I believe backed by a hedge fund, would lose their 20-year government monopoly and no longer be able to seek billions of dollars in court. I have no idea who or what OpenSky is, and I don't weigh in on huge corporate cases like VLSI v. Intel where everyone has plenty of money for their own representation. But it's really wild to me that this alleged "abuse" (that could lead to the loss of... a patent) immediately got the attention of officials, who are taking rapid action. Yet there are thousands of victims of patent troll extortion every year. These extortions are real, and documented, and hurt businesses that are much much smaller than VLSI. (and operate actual businesses, which AFAIK VLSI does not). But here's the value proposition: It's just not wrong to challenge a government subsidy or monopoly. Period. Especially on computer software and hardware, because they're often wrongly granted. Even if you accept that the OpenSky situation is the moral equivalent of patent trolling (I absolutely do not), it's happened to patent owners ONE time. (Maybe a few others, but it's a count-on-your-fingers thing). I wish people extorted by patent trolls for real money got 1/100th the attention of the tiny numbers of patent owners who lost (or almost lost) their patent monopolies.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pclmulqdq 3y ago> But here's the value proposition: It's just not wrong to challenge a government subsidy or monopoly. Period. Especially on computer software and hardware, because they're often wrongly granted. I see where you're coming from, but I would suggest that this is pretty much an extremist point of view on intellectual property protections. It's easy to say that the online shopping cart is a dumb patent (because it is, and the Supreme Court generally agrees with you), but I think you would be hard pressed to argue against the societal value of patents on integrated circuit technologies, which can take $billions to develop, provide tremendous societal value, and have strategic implications. Still, that does clarify the viewpoint of the piece to some degree - it suggests that you and the EFF are in favor of "patent accelerationism": make the system so shitty for participants that they abandon it entirely. The system is definitely shitty now, but I don't really see anyone abandoning it. By the way, VLSI is the remains of a real technology company that went out of business... because its IP was blatantly copied. They had no choice but to sell out to a patent troll.
- Nezteb 3y agoPlease set up a petition with https://resist.bot https://resist.bot as well!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]