8 ms·

Wi-Fi patent troll hit with racketeering suit emerges unscathed

75 points by bitops 14y ago

shmerl 14y ago
Patent trolling is exactly that - protection racket. It's a shame that the judicial / legal system is so broken that it can't apply the existing laws to smash these racketeers for good.
- SeanDav 14y ago
  As much as I would like to see a patent troll smashed, I think that a company asserting rights that are challenge-able in a court is not racketeering. Greedy, despicable and morally bankrupt, yes.
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    The problem is that the entire legal system is a protection racket. If you don't have deep pockets, you are 100% subject to the whims if whatever kind of troll that comes knocking. But why should this be surprising when the people who pass the laws are mostly members of the group that gets rich either way.
    - dylangs1030 14y ago
      I was with you up until the last sentence. I don't intend to be mean, but you should really try to avoid seemingly partison statements like that unless you make them less vague, more relevant and add citations. It's not simply that your statement isn't true (you didn't specify enough for it to be one way or another), it's that it amounts to just spouting cynical minutia. It gives people an excuse not to listen to your point if you tag a bland political statement on to an otherwise substantial point.
      - DigitalJack 14y ago
        Wouldn't he have to at least imply a party for it to be partisan?
        dylangs1030 14y ago
        The party implied is democratic liberalism, which opposes the perceived nepotism in government due to a saturation of rich individuals and leverage afforded by wealth. That's not saying I agree or disagree with the view, I'm just neutrally defining it. I'm not saying he is a member or even ideologically agrees. That's just the position implied in that statement.
        AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        >The party implied is democratic liberalism, which opposes the perceived nepotism in government due to a saturation of rich individuals and leverage afforded by wealth. Is it? "The government is corrupt and incompetent so they should stay out of it" is a basic conservative/libertarian position. I think a lot more people would agree with conservatives in principle if they weren't so hypocritical and corrupt in practice. You hear the occasional lip service regarding the poor or power imbalances reinforced by government policies, but they never seriously advance policies that would do anything about it, and any time they actually propose or enact anything specific the result is usually the complete opposite of that. Cue the old saw about Republicans believing the government is corrupt and incompetent and proving it every time they're elected.
        btilly 14y ago
        That party is only implied if you bring a lot of biases to your judgement that I do not share. Why do I not share it? The same statement, with the same reasoning, could be made about tort reform. And yet now when you look at voting records, Republicans are the ones you'd associate the issue with. Ah, but you say that the statement as provided implicitly mentions large corporations as a problem? Yet concern about the power of large corporations is not a uniquely Democratic issue. For instance Rand Paul has taken a pretty strong stance on the issue. d As a generality, most Americans are happy to say that most politicians are corrupt and reflect the vested interests of those who brought them to power. And this unanimity lasts exactly until you ask them about the politicians that they voted for.
  - shmerl 14y ago
    It is racketeering. The only catch here is that the broken legal system made this racket hardly challengeable through courts and allowed such racket to exist to begin with. The fact that the legal system has too many holes doesn't make racket a non racket.
arbuge 14y ago
This kind of stuff will go on, all the way down the slippery slope of craziness, until Congress acts and does the only logical thing - ban software/methodology/business process patents in their entirety. Meanwhile the patent trolls will continue to enrich themselves to the tune of billions of dollars. (Around $20B in 2012 by the way - that last comment isn't hyperbole).
- dylangs1030 14y ago
  Not necessarily. If you amend the way in which patents are granted, tighten the criteria for a grantable patent, and change the ways patents are enforced, you have a chance to reform the system. What you say could be true, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water until you've tried other ways first. EDIT: This is also a technology issue. If patent offices had a better understanding of Wi-Fi and practical applications of public internet, a patent wouldn't be granted to Innovatio that would give them a legal position, and this circumstance wouldn't arise. Keep the patent system, but educate the system on rapid technology advances. It's stale, but amendable.
  - Kliment 14y ago
    I personally now believe the patent system deserves to die in its entirety. It is not producing any value, it is not resulting in any innovation, it just strikes fear into the hearts of those of us who would dare attempt to make something meaningful.
    - potatolicious 14y ago
      This is a common belief in the software industry - and almost only in the software industry. Software patents != all patents There are fields where R&D costs are astronomical, and patents are a barrier that allows this enormous amount of money to be spent. Keep in mind that software patents are only a tiny slice of the whole patent pie.
      - arbuge 14y ago
jessaustin 14y ago
Many manufacturers claim to have licensed the relevant patents from Broadcom, in which case their customers are not infringing by "exhaustion". Presumably there are some manufacturers that didn't license, so parties who purchased equipment from those would not have that defense. Does the troll in this case have any reason to think that the hotels it's targeting have unlicensed and thus infringing equipment? Or is this just an RIAA-style dragnet, in which you're guilty until you prove all your equipment is licensed? Is there really no means by which courts can rein in this type of abuse?
- exhilaration 14y ago
  Very good point but how does one determine if the manufacturer of one's wifi equipment has licensed the relevant patents? I assume you can ask them after you get sued.
CognitiveLens 14y ago
Can anyone offer advice on the best response from a small business that is sent a letter from a troll like this? Particularly since in this case it sounds like the patents themselves are valid, but have been licensed by the tech provider - how should end users protect themselves? I realize there are plenty of rants against these practices available to read in many forums, but given the progression of this case, what options are available to the defendants?
- shmerl 14y ago
  You should probably consult a lawyer who deals with defense against such patent racket. But one practical approach could be to pool resources with others who were threatened by them. Most racket victims don't have enough resources to fight on their own, but if they unite - it can be easier to fight back. Trolls usually threaten many parties, so you should research who else is affected and contact them to build your common course of action. Validity of patents requires research, even if you think they are "valid" it doesn't mean they are really valid. If prior art exists - the patent can be busted. But research requires time and resources, and that's where pooling can help if you have many interested parties united.
- socalnate1 14y ago
  Ignore it. They send thousands of letters for the same reasons e-mail spammers do, they anticipate a huge percentage of people to ignore them, lose the letter, have no money, etc. Be a part of that group. This doesn't help the societal problem, but unless you're a well known company and/or have very deep pockets, your best bet is to just ignore the letters.
  - dpark 14y ago
    That really depends on what kind of letter you get. If you ignore an actual lawsuit, you may find a judge ruling in default against you, which is what the article mentions at the bottom. > A few days after Holderman's order came out, Innovatio lawyers filed a lengthy series of notices regarding the dozens of hotels it is preparing to ask for a "default judgment" against, which suggests those hotels haven't yet defended themselves against the infringement allegations. Now there's a hearing approaching next week, on February 21, and Innovatio has put the hotels on notice that it intends to ask for judgments against them of $5,000 each.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
geuis 14y ago
I'm reminded of this awesome scene in the novel Daemon. The Daemon recognizes spammers as a threat to its existence. It hires, via proxies, criminals and mob members to assassinate identified spammers all within the span of a few hours. Global spam drops to almost nothing within a few days.
mieubrisse 14y ago
This sort of stuff makes me feel approximately pure despair. I'm no lawyer, but I would think that the prevalence of patent trolls would be enough of an indicator to a judge to shut this sort of thing down hard.
- lh7777 14y ago
  They've got to work within the law, and the law hasn't caught up yet. I'm sure this sort of thing will be sorted out eventually, but in the meantime a lot of small businesses will still get hurt or destroyed.
  - mattstreet 14y ago
    And yet when people complain about being stuck working for giant shitty corporations, they get told to just start their own business.
DocG 14y ago
In my country, if I remember correctly, you need to pay 5% up front to court for the money you want. Meaning If I want to sue McDonalds for 1 mil, I have to pay 5k. This keeps away nonsense cases. If I lose, court keeps money. If I win, I can add this sum to the total amount. This keeps cases real and amounts realistic.
- mnutt 14y ago
  What if the person is very poor and doesn't have 50k to put up for a lawsuit? Should no plaintiff ever be able to sue someone for more than 5% of the plaintiff's total net worth? The real issue is that since corporations don't have the same responsibilities as real people, they shouldn't have the same rights.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Surely if they can find a lawyer who honestly thinks they have a case, they could get a loan for that amount.
    - dylangs1030 14y ago
      Yes but that takes more time. It's an interesting system, but we can't pretend it doesn't have its own drawbacks.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        I'm thinking the loan could be from the lawyer themselves and built into their standard payment contract (similar to that "pay nothing if we don't win!" deal perhaps), but yes, it isn't a perfect system.
        dylangs1030 14y ago
        I suppose that would depend on the lawyer's financial position and personal integrity.
      - 14y ago
dylangs1030 14y ago
Startup opportunity: patent troll insurance. This is a disgusting abuse of the legal system and current patent laws. It puts innovation in jeopardy by way of stagnation - small businesses won't offer WiFi as much if they know they can be sued by a company that has no practical connection to the technology. And if it isn't used as much by as many entities, how will it improve? I think it's a joke that Innovatio bluffed not attacking home Wi-Fi as if it's an intentional "strategic position" like that. As if a single obscure company with flimsy title deeds on technology could really take away something so integrated from the public. They would have a reaction akin to SOPA.
- PotatoEngineer 14y ago
  Patent troll insurance skirts the line of being just as bad as patent trolls themselves: "Pay us some money and maybe you won't get hit by patent trolls." It's a great idea, but when I look at it closer, it looks pretty similar to trolling: "Pay us a little bit of money and we'll go away." It's not quite that bad, because it adds on "...and we'll make other people go away," but it's still interestingly close.
  - PotatoEngineer 14y ago
    One additional thought: anyone who buys patent troll insurance instantly becomes a highly-cooperative target. Why fight it? Why ignore it? Just send the contact info for your insurance company, and let them pay it.
Natsu 14y ago
As an interesting thought experiment, I wonder how lawyers would feel if legal "processes" could be patented and the practice of law itself was subject to claims of infringement? Particularly if relatively basic uses of basic legal principles were being patented and individual lawyers, rather than their firms, could be held liable. Because that's the sort of nonsense being inflicted upon computer scientists.
- noselasd 14y ago
  Best idea I've heard this week. Someone, make it happen.
- wlesieutre 14y ago
  I'm sorry, but you'll need to license the patent for a "method of patenting basic legal processes" first.
jevinskie 14y ago
How is it that the end consumers are being hit with a lawsuit that resulted from their equipment manufacture not being properly licensed? Is it my responsibility to vet that every piece of consumer electronics was properly licensed for the technologies that they use?
- mikeash 14y ago
  Technically, yes. Simply using an infringing technology without permission qualifies as patent infringement. You'd probably have an excellent case to sue the manufacturer for damages if this happened, but you aren't automatically shielded just because you're the end user.
femto 14y ago
Does anyone know the identification numbers of the patents that Innovatio IP are using, or even the specific claims that are being used? I'm interested to compare with some prior art that I am aware of.
- gonzo 14y ago
  U.S. Patent Nos. 6,714,559, 7,386,002, 7,535,921, 7,548,553, 5,740,366, 5,940,771, 6,374,311, 7,457,646, 5,546,397, 5,844,893, 6,665,536, 6,697,415, 7,013,138, 7,710,907, 7,916,747, 7,873,343, and 7,536,167 Source: http://morrisjames.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/cisco-systems-inc-and-motorola-solutions-inc-v-innovatio-ip-ventures-llc.pdf http://morrisjames.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/cisco-systems...
zalzane 14y ago
The real problem with patent trolls is that this entire spectacle is completely out of the public's eye. Outside of business/startup circles, the concept of a patent troll is completely foreign. It would be amazing if Vice or someone of the like did a documentary on this modern day mafia to educate the public on this new form of crime. Once the public is actually conscious that this issue exists, congress would be pressured to act in order to keep their voters happy.

75 points by bitops 14y ago

Patent trolling is exactly that - protection racket. It's a shame that the judicial / legal system is so broken that it can't apply the existing laws to smash these racketeers for good.

SeanDav 14y ago
As much as I would like to see a patent troll smashed, I think that a company asserting rights that are challenge-able in a court is not racketeering. Greedy, despicable and morally bankrupt, yes.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  The problem is that the entire legal system is a protection racket. If you don't have deep pockets, you are 100% subject to the whims if whatever kind of troll that comes knocking. But why should this be surprising when the people who pass the laws are mostly members of the group that gets rich either way.
  - dylangs1030 14y ago
    I was with you up until the last sentence. I don't intend to be mean, but you should really try to avoid seemingly partison statements like that unless you make them less vague, more relevant and add citations. It's not simply that your statement isn't true (you didn't specify enough for it to be one way or another), it's that it amounts to just spouting cynical minutia. It gives people an excuse not to listen to your point if you tag a bland political statement on to an otherwise substantial point.
    - DigitalJack 14y ago
      Wouldn't he have to at least imply a party for it to be partisan?
      - dylangs1030 14y ago
        The party implied is democratic liberalism, which opposes the perceived nepotism in government due to a saturation of rich individuals and leverage afforded by wealth. That's not saying I agree or disagree with the view, I'm just neutrally defining it. I'm not saying he is a member or even ideologically agrees. That's just the position implied in that statement.
        AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        >The party implied is democratic liberalism, which opposes the perceived nepotism in government due to a saturation of rich individuals and leverage afforded by wealth. Is it? "The government is corrupt and incompetent so they should stay out of it" is a basic conservative/libertarian position. I think a lot more people would agree with conservatives in principle if they weren't so hypocritical and corrupt in practice. You hear the occasional lip service regarding the poor or power imbalances reinforced by government policies, but they never seriously advance policies that would do anything about it, and any time they actually propose or enact anything specific the result is usually the complete opposite of that. Cue the old saw about Republicans believing the government is corrupt and incompetent and proving it every time they're elected.
        btilly 14y ago
        That party is only implied if you bring a lot of biases to your judgement that I do not share. Why do I not share it? The same statement, with the same reasoning, could be made about tort reform. And yet now when you look at voting records, Republicans are the ones you'd associate the issue with. Ah, but you say that the statement as provided implicitly mentions large corporations as a problem? Yet concern about the power of large corporations is not a uniquely Democratic issue. For instance Rand Paul has taken a pretty strong stance on the issue. d As a generality, most Americans are happy to say that most politicians are corrupt and reflect the vested interests of those who brought them to power. And this unanimity lasts exactly until you ask them about the politicians that they voted for.
- shmerl 14y ago
  It is racketeering. The only catch here is that the broken legal system made this racket hardly challengeable through courts and allowed such racket to exist to begin with. The fact that the legal system has too many holes doesn't make racket a non racket.

arbuge 14y ago

This kind of stuff will go on, all the way down the slippery slope of craziness, until Congress acts and does the only logical thing - ban software/methodology/business process patents in their entirety. Meanwhile the patent trolls will continue to enrich themselves to the tune of billions of dollars. (Around $20B in 2012 by the way - that last comment isn't hyperbole).

dylangs1030 14y ago
Not necessarily. If you amend the way in which patents are granted, tighten the criteria for a grantable patent, and change the ways patents are enforced, you have a chance to reform the system. What you say could be true, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water until you've tried other ways first. EDIT: This is also a technology issue. If patent offices had a better understanding of Wi-Fi and practical applications of public internet, a patent wouldn't be granted to Innovatio that would give them a legal position, and this circumstance wouldn't arise. Keep the patent system, but educate the system on rapid technology advances. It's stale, but amendable.
- Kliment 14y ago
  I personally now believe the patent system deserves to die in its entirety. It is not producing any value, it is not resulting in any innovation, it just strikes fear into the hearts of those of us who would dare attempt to make something meaningful.
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    This is a common belief in the software industry - and almost only in the software industry. Software patents != all patents There are fields where R&D costs are astronomical, and patents are a barrier that allows this enormous amount of money to be spent. Keep in mind that software patents are only a tiny slice of the whole patent pie.
    - arbuge 14y ago

jessaustin 14y ago

Many manufacturers claim to have licensed the relevant patents from Broadcom, in which case their customers are not infringing by "exhaustion". Presumably there are some manufacturers that didn't license, so parties who purchased equipment from those would not have that defense. Does the troll in this case have any reason to think that the hotels it's targeting have unlicensed and thus infringing equipment? Or is this just an RIAA-style dragnet, in which you're guilty until you prove all your equipment is licensed? Is there really no means by which courts can rein in this type of abuse?

exhilaration 14y ago
Very good point but how does one determine if the manufacturer of one's wifi equipment has licensed the relevant patents? I assume you can ask them after you get sued.

CognitiveLens 14y ago

Can anyone offer advice on the best response from a small business that is sent a letter from a troll like this? Particularly since in this case it sounds like the patents themselves are valid, but have been licensed by the tech provider - how should end users protect themselves? I realize there are plenty of rants against these practices available to read in many forums, but given the progression of this case, what options are available to the defendants?

shmerl 14y ago
You should probably consult a lawyer who deals with defense against such patent racket. But one practical approach could be to pool resources with others who were threatened by them. Most racket victims don't have enough resources to fight on their own, but if they unite - it can be easier to fight back. Trolls usually threaten many parties, so you should research who else is affected and contact them to build your common course of action. Validity of patents requires research, even if you think they are "valid" it doesn't mean they are really valid. If prior art exists - the patent can be busted. But research requires time and resources, and that's where pooling can help if you have many interested parties united.
socalnate1 14y ago
Ignore it. They send thousands of letters for the same reasons e-mail spammers do, they anticipate a huge percentage of people to ignore them, lose the letter, have no money, etc. Be a part of that group. This doesn't help the societal problem, but unless you're a well known company and/or have very deep pockets, your best bet is to just ignore the letters.
- dpark 14y ago
  That really depends on what kind of letter you get. If you ignore an actual lawsuit, you may find a judge ruling in default against you, which is what the article mentions at the bottom. > A few days after Holderman's order came out, Innovatio lawyers filed a lengthy series of notices regarding the dozens of hotels it is preparing to ask for a "default judgment" against, which suggests those hotels haven't yet defended themselves against the infringement allegations. Now there's a hearing approaching next week, on February 21, and Innovatio has put the hotels on notice that it intends to ask for judgments against them of $5,000 each.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

geuis 14y ago

I'm reminded of this awesome scene in the novel Daemon. The Daemon recognizes spammers as a threat to its existence. It hires, via proxies, criminals and mob members to assassinate identified spammers all within the span of a few hours. Global spam drops to almost nothing within a few days.

mieubrisse 14y ago

This sort of stuff makes me feel approximately pure despair. I'm no lawyer, but I would think that the prevalence of patent trolls would be enough of an indicator to a judge to shut this sort of thing down hard.

lh7777 14y ago
They've got to work within the law, and the law hasn't caught up yet. I'm sure this sort of thing will be sorted out eventually, but in the meantime a lot of small businesses will still get hurt or destroyed.
- mattstreet 14y ago
  And yet when people complain about being stuck working for giant shitty corporations, they get told to just start their own business.

DocG 14y ago

In my country, if I remember correctly, you need to pay 5% up front to court for the money you want. Meaning If I want to sue McDonalds for 1 mil, I have to pay 5k. This keeps away nonsense cases. If I lose, court keeps money. If I win, I can add this sum to the total amount. This keeps cases real and amounts realistic.

mnutt 14y ago
What if the person is very poor and doesn't have 50k to put up for a lawsuit? Should no plaintiff ever be able to sue someone for more than 5% of the plaintiff's total net worth? The real issue is that since corporations don't have the same responsibilities as real people, they shouldn't have the same rights.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Surely if they can find a lawyer who honestly thinks they have a case, they could get a loan for that amount.
  - dylangs1030 14y ago
    Yes but that takes more time. It's an interesting system, but we can't pretend it doesn't have its own drawbacks.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      I'm thinking the loan could be from the lawyer themselves and built into their standard payment contract (similar to that "pay nothing if we don't win!" deal perhaps), but yes, it isn't a perfect system.
      - dylangs1030 14y ago
        I suppose that would depend on the lawyer's financial position and personal integrity.
    - 14y ago

dylangs1030 14y ago

Startup opportunity: patent troll insurance. This is a disgusting abuse of the legal system and current patent laws. It puts innovation in jeopardy by way of stagnation - small businesses won't offer WiFi as much if they know they can be sued by a company that has no practical connection to the technology. And if it isn't used as much by as many entities, how will it improve? I think it's a joke that Innovatio bluffed not attacking home Wi-Fi as if it's an intentional "strategic position" like that. As if a single obscure company with flimsy title deeds on technology could really take away something so integrated from the public. They would have a reaction akin to SOPA.

PotatoEngineer 14y ago
Patent troll insurance skirts the line of being just as bad as patent trolls themselves: "Pay us some money and maybe you won't get hit by patent trolls." It's a great idea, but when I look at it closer, it looks pretty similar to trolling: "Pay us a little bit of money and we'll go away." It's not quite that bad, because it adds on "...and we'll make other people go away," but it's still interestingly close.
- PotatoEngineer 14y ago
  One additional thought: anyone who buys patent troll insurance instantly becomes a highly-cooperative target. Why fight it? Why ignore it? Just send the contact info for your insurance company, and let them pay it.

Natsu 14y ago

As an interesting thought experiment, I wonder how lawyers would feel if legal "processes" could be patented and the practice of law itself was subject to claims of infringement? Particularly if relatively basic uses of basic legal principles were being patented and individual lawyers, rather than their firms, could be held liable. Because that's the sort of nonsense being inflicted upon computer scientists.

noselasd 14y ago
Best idea I've heard this week. Someone, make it happen.
wlesieutre 14y ago
I'm sorry, but you'll need to license the patent for a "method of patenting basic legal processes" first.

jevinskie 14y ago

How is it that the end consumers are being hit with a lawsuit that resulted from their equipment manufacture not being properly licensed? Is it my responsibility to vet that every piece of consumer electronics was properly licensed for the technologies that they use?

mikeash 14y ago
Technically, yes. Simply using an infringing technology without permission qualifies as patent infringement. You'd probably have an excellent case to sue the manufacturer for damages if this happened, but you aren't automatically shielded just because you're the end user.

femto 14y ago

Does anyone know the identification numbers of the patents that Innovatio IP are using, or even the specific claims that are being used? I'm interested to compare with some prior art that I am aware of.

gonzo 14y ago
U.S. Patent Nos. 6,714,559, 7,386,002, 7,535,921, 7,548,553, 5,740,366, 5,940,771, 6,374,311, 7,457,646, 5,546,397, 5,844,893, 6,665,536, 6,697,415, 7,013,138, 7,710,907, 7,916,747, 7,873,343, and 7,536,167 Source: http://morrisjames.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/cisco-systems-inc-and-motorola-solutions-inc-v-innovatio-ip-ventures-llc.pdf http://morrisjames.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/cisco-systems...

zalzane 14y ago

The real problem with patent trolls is that this entire spectacle is completely out of the public's eye. Outside of business/startup circles, the concept of a patent troll is completely foreign. It would be amazing if Vice or someone of the like did a documentary on this modern day mafia to educate the public on this new form of crime. Once the public is actually conscious that this issue exists, congress would be pressured to act in order to keep their voters happy.