8 ms·

FindTheBest destroys “matchmaking” patent, pushes RICO case against troll

130 points by sieva 13y ago

chasing 13y ago
I'm repeating myself, but in every single one of these patent trolling cases: Name. And. Shame. Eileen Shapiro. The headline should be: "FindTheBest destroys 'matchmaking' patent, pushes RICO case against patent troll Eileen Shapiro." (I'm assuming she's not the only one involved, but they've got her name in there.) Don't let these people hide behind the names of their patent companies. Let them become famous for their malicious greediness.
- allochthon 13y ago
  Name. And. Shame. I wish some enterprising young kids in the tech community could work out a technical or collective solution to the problem of patent trolls. They would be asking for punishment, to be sure. But I bet there are some really cool things that can be done here. * One naive idea: a subscription-based nonprofit that pools legal expenses and member patent portfolios and fights defensive cases on behalf of startups and small businesses. The more such companies that join, the more formidable its portfolio would become. * Another naive idea: publish information about patent cases underway in areas of the world that fall outside of the jurisdiction of a court imposing an injunction. I'm guessing this would need to be done by a third party so as not to prejudice the case of the business being sued by the troll, but I'm not a lawyer.
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    > One naive idea: a subscription-based nonprofit that pools legal expenses and member patent portfolios and fights defensive cases on behalf of startups and small businesses. The more such companies that join, the more formidable its portfolio would become. Patent portfolios don't work against trolls that don't have any business other than patent extortion. > Another naive idea: publish information about patent cases underway in areas of the world that fall outside of the jurisdiction of a court imposing an injunction. The court records are already public. It's the cases that settle that you never hear about, because the trolls demand that you sign an NDA. I don't know that publishing in a different country gets you out of the NDA. What we really need is to start a PAC to abolish software patents and have everyone contribute money to it, and provide them with lots of "ammunition" (i.e. thousands of testimonials from startup founders explaining how the patent system is ruining everything) to bring to Congress to get this fixed. Note that this isn't the EFF -- they do good work, but they're litigators, not lobbyists. This is a situation where what we really need are lobbyists to push to get the law changed, and grass roots lobbying by individuals to the same end.
    - 3825 13y ago
      > What we really need is to start a PAC to abolish software patents and have everyone contribute money to it Can we really outspend IBM and Microsoft? I saw something on hacker news last week that said a relatively minor patent reform bill died in the house thanks to those two companies (and 3M and many others but mainly IBM and Microsoft). Name. and shame.
      - puppetmaster3 13y ago
        A solution: Out-bribe the corrupt congress. That is not feeding them?
    - throwawaykf 13y ago
      How would you legally define "software patent"? If you figure it out, please let the Supreme Court, the CAFC and the USPTO know, because currently nobody really knows. As for "ammunition", look up the Berkeley Patent Survey [1]. The only damning thing you'll find in there, though, is that entrepreneurs in software on average don't think they present a competitive advantage, so "only" 60% of software startups file for patents. And it's typically because investors ask for them. Edit: I misremembered... It's actually only 25% of all software startups in the survey, but 67% of VC-backed startups. 1. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1429049 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1429049
      - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
        > How would you legally define "software patent"? Software patent: A patent that can be infringed by executing a software program on a general purpose computer. > It's actually only 25% of all software startups in the survey, but 67% of VC-backed startups. Which does tell you something, doesn't it? Unless VC-backed startups are an incredibly small percentage of startups, the patents filed by non-VC-backed startups would have to be significantly smaller than 24% (I assume 25% was a typo, see table on page 1277 of the report). Moreover, given the stark contrast in the numbers, query whether the VCs are interested in patents as patents vs. interested in them as a method for weeding out uncommitted startup founders. But I'm less concerned about the number of patents software startups are applying for. If nobody was applying for software patents at all, obviously the patent system wouldn't be doing any good there, but it wouldn't really be the strongest call for abolishing them -- no harm no foul, right? The problem isn't (just) the lack of usefulness or cost effectiveness of patents to innovators, it's the harm created by mass producing land mines. Because if software startups aren't getting many software patents, but the number of software patents being issued keeps going up, guess who is.
  - acdha 13y ago
    > subscription-based nonprofit that pools legal expenses and member patent portfolios and fights defensive cases on behalf of startups and small businesses. You might find this interesting: John Walker, one of the Autodesk founders, tried to popularize the same idea in the early 90s: http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_105.html http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_105.html Unfortunately, too many companies didn't want to give up the option to sue and the rise of the limited-liability shell company made it pointless as there's no point in counter-suing a company with no assets which will fold if any counterattack succeeds.
    - allochthon 13y ago
      Thanks for the link. the rise of the limited-liability shell company made it pointless as there's no point in counter-suing a company with no assets which will fold if any counterattack succeeds. Wouldn't that get rid of the troll? Also, would it be possible to seek legal expenses from the shell corporation's creditors?
      - DougBTX 13y ago
        No, the first shell company just needs to sell the patent on to a new shell company, which can then start over.
      - acdha 13y ago
        > Wouldn't that get rid of the troll? That depends: in some cases it appears that they've tried things as blazen as having a shell company which licenses the rights to sue for a patent but doesn't actually own it. If the shell goes bankrupt, the only “asset” is that right to sue, not the actual patent, and the people involved are free to simply try again later. If you haven't looked at this before, This American Life had a two part series with a good general examination of the system – spurred by a troll running around suing everyone who podcasts: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w... http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/when-patents-attack-part-two http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/w... > Also, would it be possible to seek legal expenses from the shell corporation's creditors? That's a really important question. The assumption has been no but there have been attempts to try RICO cases[1] and it sounds like the entire legal climate is getting more sympathetic to the idea that what we're seeing is extortion, pure and simple. Most of the legislation floating around Congress at least made some attempt to deal with this part of the problem but, of course, none of that counts until something is actually close to passing. 1. e.g. yesterday's story: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/findthebest-destroys-matchmaking-patent-pushes-rico-case-against-troll/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/findthebest-destr...
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  Not enough people care about this issue that your strategy would work. Plus the fact that they probably earn huge amounts of money that, to them, would more than compensate for their bad reputation. Fighting and winning court cases seems like a much more productive strategy, though it is not something we can all engage in. Also, as a matter of principle I don't think HNs title policy should be violated in order to spread a political message, no matter how much I agree with that message.
  - paulgb 13y ago
    Eileen, who has published books among other things, now has to explain to anyone who googles her why the first result is an article calling her a troll. That's not just embarrassing, it's financially damaging.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- clarkm 13y ago
  According to her Businessweek profile [1], she's the President of The Hillcrest Group, Inc. Anyone have any idea what the hell this company does? I can't find anything on Google. [1] http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=12341753 http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/pe...
- nhebb 13y ago
  A lot of info about Shapiro and The Hillcrest Group can be found in this reddit thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/fog7u/hey_reddit_hows_the_lawsuit_going/ http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/fog7u/hey_reddit_...
- troisx 13y ago
  I agree with naming and shaming the trolls, but I also believe in naming and shaming the people who approve these patents. Every time I look up one of USPTO workers involved, their online profiles (FB, etc.) show how utterly unqualified they are to be involved in the patent process.
  - chris_wot 13y ago
    Can you give an example?
  - tbrownaw 13y ago
    Every time I look up one of USPTO workers involved, their online profiles (FB, etc.) show how utterly unqualified they are to be involved in the patent process. Doesn't that reflect more on whoever hired them? I've also heard that the patent office doesn't care about the quality of patents so much as (1) processing applications cheaply and (2) not getting sued for denying questionable applications. Which again would reflect on the top-level people rather than on the individual patent examiners constrained by those policies.
- us0r 13y ago
  I doubt she cares even a little.
- arbuge 13y ago
  I'm guessing the kind of people who would become patent trolls are unlikely to be deterred significantly by seeing their names in print. I don't think they're particularly proud of their reputation to begin with if they resort to this way of making money.
  - paulgb 13y ago
    In Shapiro's case I don't think that's necessarily true. "She’s a former MIT professor, a venture consultant for the Hillcrest Group, and a published author for the Harvard Business Review." (http://pandodaily.com/2013/07/26/how-to-slaughter-a-patent-troll-in-5-steps/ http://pandodaily.com/2013/07/26/how-to-slaughter-a-patent-t...)
    - reddit_clone 13y ago
      A very clever troll then?
- throwawaykf 13y ago
  Naming and shaming won't in the least affect people like Spangenberg: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/newegg-on-trial-mystery-company-tqp-re-writes-the-history-of-encryption/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/newegg-on-trial-m...
- joshdotsmith 13y ago
  The patent troll behind this, Eileen Shapiro, has a book on management on Amazon. Laughable. http://www.amazon.com/Fad-Surfing-Boardroom-Managing-Instant/dp/0201441950/ http://www.amazon.com/Fad-Surfing-Boardroom-Managing-Instant... I'd also like to point out that she's on the Board of Advisors for marketing/PR agency HB Agency: http://www.hbagency.com/about-us/board-of-advisors/ http://www.hbagency.com/about-us/board-of-advisors/
taspeotis 13y ago
FindTheBest destroys patent troll (arstechnica.com) 18 points by sieva 2 hours ago | flag | cached | share | 1 comment Actual article title: FindTheBest destroys “matchmaking” patent, pushes RICO case against troll
- alextingle 13y ago
  How does this comment further the discussion?
  - taspeotis 13y ago
    alextingle 29 minutes ago | link How does this comment further the discussion? I'm pointing out the title doesn't match reality. The patent is "destroyed", not the company. There's nothing to suggest the company is in trouble. How significant is this patent being smacked down in court? How many patents does the company have? Is this the only one? Do they have 50? Maybe you could contribute some answers and further the discussion?
jakejake 13y ago
I am so cheering on FTB and salivating for a sweet, sweet verdict against the patent troll. Seeing someone like Eileen Shapiro named and shamed plus forced to pay $200k court costs would be the most wonderful Christmas gift ever!
happywolf 13y ago
I don't see any indication the troll is destroyed.
ExpiredLink 13y ago
It's important to see the long-term strategy behind software-patents. Currently we are in phase 1, the "Wild West". Anyone is free to grab some land and claim ownership. Gradually more civilized procedures will be developed to acquire (intellectual) property. But make no mistake. Software patents are in the interest of the dominating classes in the US and will be established. Two convincing arguments: Software patents 1. create revenue for the patent holders. 2. can be used to deter foreign competitors or at least to 'tax' them with patent fees. tl;dr: unfortunately poor prospects for the anti-patent league.
drzaiusapelord 13y ago
So what? Right now the USPTO is approving hundreds of other useless patents of marginal value and expects the courts to figure out their validity. Without reform these wins are just morale boosters and nothing else.
- mistercow 13y ago
  Morale boosters are potentially helpful, though. If the perception shifts from "hopeless" to "fighting chance", and we start seeing more trolls defeated in court, the story can be framed much more usefully. Right now it's "businesses are being shaken down for violating frivolous patents". That's not great because it's too easy to argue against superficially. All the trolls have to say is "If these patents are so frivolous, why do so many businesses agree to settle out of court?" There's a good answer to that question, but now you're having a debate, so you've already lost. But if the story is "the courts are clogged with frivolous patent suits because the USPTO isn't doing its damned job", there is no debate. People don't like to think. They want someone else to do the thinking for them. If a debate has no tribal affiliation, the two sides both seem to have an argument, and there's no authoritative answer, people throw up their hands and say "well, it's complicated". Change the story so that the courts can be that authority, and people will just take their answer as read. So the issue stops being "are patent trolls a problem?" and becomes "how do we fix patent trolling?"
girvo 13y ago
Love the judge's comment here: > "There is no inventive idea here," she wrote in her order. > "Having two or more parties input preference data is not inventive. > Matchmakers have been doing this for millennia... It is merely a > mathematical manifestation of the underlying process behind matchmaking: > determining good matches." A judge that uses the "computer algorithms == maths", and uses it to shut down a shitty patent? Awesome! I wish there were more judges like Judge Denise Colt. Well done.
- randartie 13y ago
  Judge Denise Cote* (not Cole)
  - girvo 13y ago
    I actually had Colt, not Cole ;) Cheers! I knew I was going to misspell it for some reason...
- mtgx 13y ago
  If only USPTO would include such logic in their patent reviews before passing those patents. A good portion of such patents could've been banned with the new bill against patent trolls, if only companies like Microsoft and IBM wouldn't have lobbied so hard against such reform.
callmeed 13y ago
Makes me wonder if said troll slipped up when targeting FindTheBest. I'm assuming a troll wants to go after someone who is big enough to pay some money but not so big that they can afford to fight. FindTheBest's founder was formerly founder/CEO of DoubleClick. I'm not sure going after someone with a VC background and a 10-figure exit to Google was very wise.
adamnemecek 13y ago
Not that it's relevant to anything but it appears that Eileen Shapiro has written a book http://www.amazon.com/Make-Your-Own-Luck-Practical-ebook/dp/B000OI1ABQ/ http://www.amazon.com/Make-Your-Own-Luck-Practical-ebook/dp/... EDIT: *books http://www.amazon.com/Fad-Surfing-In-The-Boardroom/dp/0201441950/ http://www.amazon.com/Fad-Surfing-In-The-Boardroom/dp/020144...
tzs 13y ago
I don't see how a RICO case can possibly work, unless perhaps the plaintiff can show that the defendant committed fraud on the patent office.
lifeformed 13y ago
Unfortunately they still paid a big price in legal fees. Can anyone tell me what the downsides are to a loser-pays-the-fees system? I heard it's used in the UK but not in the US. What gives?
- nucleardog 13y ago
  If you're down for a bit of light reading: http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=923 http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=923
  - Tomte 13y ago
    Many of those "problems" really don't seem to exist in Germany. I guess part of it stems from the common law system, but I'm not sure.
- DanBC 13y ago
  There's a downside to the UK system. You have to pay the costs, even if you win, if: i) You're offered an out of court settlement and ii) You reject it and iii) the settlement is more than the damages you are awarded by the court This is to make sure that people try to settle things before going to court. And I'm not sure how it would work for a non-practising entity. A company that has no assets apart from the patent that they're suing for would have no money to pay fees if they lose.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    Undercapitalization in the absence of liability insurance could be grounds for piercing the corporate veil.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      It can? Has that actually happened (in the UK or US), or been argued, ever? Can you cite a source?
anoncow 13y ago
> Even this "efficient" win cost FTB about $200,000 in legal fees, said Seigle; that's four times more than the $50,000 payout that Lumen View was asking for.
ghshephard 13y ago
From US District Judge Denise Cote: "Taking basic practices in human commerce and culture and adding "do it on a computer" language ... would lead to the absurd result of allowing the patenting [of] the computerized use of even the most basic abstract ideas." Indeed.
keithpeter 13y ago
"Merely directing a computer to perform a function does not transform the computer into a specialized computer. Such a principle would lead to the absurd result of allowing the patenting [of] the computerized use of even the most basic abstract ideas." What a sensible judge they had. Perhaps noting that the rest of the world most certainly does not allow patents of quite this type might focus a few minds. This parasitic business opportunity (trolling) might be costing US its innovation lead...
jpmattia 13y ago
> From the judges order: Nothing in the ‘073 patent evinces an inventive idea beyond the idea of the patent holder to be the first to patent the computerization of a fundamental process that has occurred all through human history." It strikes me that a large number of patents would evaporate if this standard were more universally applied.
YokoZar 13y ago
It may be naiive optimism, but I hope the RICO suit has some success. A thin veneer of legalism in an obviously bogus patent shouldn't be enough to make one immune entirely from racketeering charges. By way of comparison, if I threatened to file bogus nuisance suits hoping for quick settlements for anything other than patent infringement, I very well could be held liable (and disbarred) under all manner of existing precedents.

130 points by sieva 13y ago

I'm repeating myself, but in every single one of these patent trolling cases: Name. And. Shame. Eileen Shapiro. The headline should be: "FindTheBest destroys 'matchmaking' patent, pushes RICO case against patent troll Eileen Shapiro." (I'm assuming she's not the only one involved, but they've got her name in there.) Don't let these people hide behind the names of their patent companies. Let them become famous for their malicious greediness.

allochthon 13y ago
Name. And. Shame. I wish some enterprising young kids in the tech community could work out a technical or collective solution to the problem of patent trolls. They would be asking for punishment, to be sure. But I bet there are some really cool things that can be done here. * One naive idea: a subscription-based nonprofit that pools legal expenses and member patent portfolios and fights defensive cases on behalf of startups and small businesses. The more such companies that join, the more formidable its portfolio would become. * Another naive idea: publish information about patent cases underway in areas of the world that fall outside of the jurisdiction of a court imposing an injunction. I'm guessing this would need to be done by a third party so as not to prejudice the case of the business being sued by the troll, but I'm not a lawyer.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  > One naive idea: a subscription-based nonprofit that pools legal expenses and member patent portfolios and fights defensive cases on behalf of startups and small businesses. The more such companies that join, the more formidable its portfolio would become. Patent portfolios don't work against trolls that don't have any business other than patent extortion. > Another naive idea: publish information about patent cases underway in areas of the world that fall outside of the jurisdiction of a court imposing an injunction. The court records are already public. It's the cases that settle that you never hear about, because the trolls demand that you sign an NDA. I don't know that publishing in a different country gets you out of the NDA. What we really need is to start a PAC to abolish software patents and have everyone contribute money to it, and provide them with lots of "ammunition" (i.e. thousands of testimonials from startup founders explaining how the patent system is ruining everything) to bring to Congress to get this fixed. Note that this isn't the EFF -- they do good work, but they're litigators, not lobbyists. This is a situation where what we really need are lobbyists to push to get the law changed, and grass roots lobbying by individuals to the same end.
  - 3825 13y ago
    > What we really need is to start a PAC to abolish software patents and have everyone contribute money to it Can we really outspend IBM and Microsoft? I saw something on hacker news last week that said a relatively minor patent reform bill died in the house thanks to those two companies (and 3M and many others but mainly IBM and Microsoft). Name. and shame.
    - puppetmaster3 13y ago
      A solution: Out-bribe the corrupt congress. That is not feeding them?
  - throwawaykf 13y ago
    How would you legally define "software patent"? If you figure it out, please let the Supreme Court, the CAFC and the USPTO know, because currently nobody really knows. As for "ammunition", look up the Berkeley Patent Survey [1]. The only damning thing you'll find in there, though, is that entrepreneurs in software on average don't think they present a competitive advantage, so "only" 60% of software startups file for patents. And it's typically because investors ask for them. Edit: I misremembered... It's actually only 25% of all software startups in the survey, but 67% of VC-backed startups. 1. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1429049 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1429049
    - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
      > How would you legally define "software patent"? Software patent: A patent that can be infringed by executing a software program on a general purpose computer. > It's actually only 25% of all software startups in the survey, but 67% of VC-backed startups. Which does tell you something, doesn't it? Unless VC-backed startups are an incredibly small percentage of startups, the patents filed by non-VC-backed startups would have to be significantly smaller than 24% (I assume 25% was a typo, see table on page 1277 of the report). Moreover, given the stark contrast in the numbers, query whether the VCs are interested in patents as patents vs. interested in them as a method for weeding out uncommitted startup founders. But I'm less concerned about the number of patents software startups are applying for. If nobody was applying for software patents at all, obviously the patent system wouldn't be doing any good there, but it wouldn't really be the strongest call for abolishing them -- no harm no foul, right? The problem isn't (just) the lack of usefulness or cost effectiveness of patents to innovators, it's the harm created by mass producing land mines. Because if software startups aren't getting many software patents, but the number of software patents being issued keeps going up, guess who is.
- acdha 13y ago
  > subscription-based nonprofit that pools legal expenses and member patent portfolios and fights defensive cases on behalf of startups and small businesses. You might find this interesting: John Walker, one of the Autodesk founders, tried to popularize the same idea in the early 90s: http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_105.html http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_105.html Unfortunately, too many companies didn't want to give up the option to sue and the rise of the limited-liability shell company made it pointless as there's no point in counter-suing a company with no assets which will fold if any counterattack succeeds.
  - allochthon 13y ago
    Thanks for the link. the rise of the limited-liability shell company made it pointless as there's no point in counter-suing a company with no assets which will fold if any counterattack succeeds. Wouldn't that get rid of the troll? Also, would it be possible to seek legal expenses from the shell corporation's creditors?
    - DougBTX 13y ago
      No, the first shell company just needs to sell the patent on to a new shell company, which can then start over.
    - acdha 13y ago
      > Wouldn't that get rid of the troll? That depends: in some cases it appears that they've tried things as blazen as having a shell company which licenses the rights to sue for a patent but doesn't actually own it. If the shell goes bankrupt, the only “asset” is that right to sue, not the actual patent, and the people involved are free to simply try again later. If you haven't looked at this before, This American Life had a two part series with a good general examination of the system – spurred by a troll running around suing everyone who podcasts: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w... http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/when-patents-attack-part-two http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/w... > Also, would it be possible to seek legal expenses from the shell corporation's creditors? That's a really important question. The assumption has been no but there have been attempts to try RICO cases[1] and it sounds like the entire legal climate is getting more sympathetic to the idea that what we're seeing is extortion, pure and simple. Most of the legislation floating around Congress at least made some attempt to deal with this part of the problem but, of course, none of that counts until something is actually close to passing. 1. e.g. yesterday's story: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/findthebest-destroys-matchmaking-patent-pushes-rico-case-against-troll/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/findthebest-destr...
yetanotherphd 13y ago
Not enough people care about this issue that your strategy would work. Plus the fact that they probably earn huge amounts of money that, to them, would more than compensate for their bad reputation. Fighting and winning court cases seems like a much more productive strategy, though it is not something we can all engage in. Also, as a matter of principle I don't think HNs title policy should be violated in order to spread a political message, no matter how much I agree with that message.
- paulgb 13y ago
  Eileen, who has published books among other things, now has to explain to anyone who googles her why the first result is an article calling her a troll. That's not just embarrassing, it's financially damaging.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
clarkm 13y ago
According to her Businessweek profile [1], she's the President of The Hillcrest Group, Inc. Anyone have any idea what the hell this company does? I can't find anything on Google. [1] http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=12341753 http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/pe...
nhebb 13y ago
A lot of info about Shapiro and The Hillcrest Group can be found in this reddit thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/fog7u/hey_reddit_hows_the_lawsuit_going/ http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/fog7u/hey_reddit_...
troisx 13y ago
I agree with naming and shaming the trolls, but I also believe in naming and shaming the people who approve these patents. Every time I look up one of USPTO workers involved, their online profiles (FB, etc.) show how utterly unqualified they are to be involved in the patent process.
- chris_wot 13y ago
  Can you give an example?
- tbrownaw 13y ago
  Every time I look up one of USPTO workers involved, their online profiles (FB, etc.) show how utterly unqualified they are to be involved in the patent process. Doesn't that reflect more on whoever hired them? I've also heard that the patent office doesn't care about the quality of patents so much as (1) processing applications cheaply and (2) not getting sued for denying questionable applications. Which again would reflect on the top-level people rather than on the individual patent examiners constrained by those policies.
us0r 13y ago
I doubt she cares even a little.
arbuge 13y ago
I'm guessing the kind of people who would become patent trolls are unlikely to be deterred significantly by seeing their names in print. I don't think they're particularly proud of their reputation to begin with if they resort to this way of making money.
- paulgb 13y ago
  In Shapiro's case I don't think that's necessarily true. "She’s a former MIT professor, a venture consultant for the Hillcrest Group, and a published author for the Harvard Business Review." (http://pandodaily.com/2013/07/26/how-to-slaughter-a-patent-troll-in-5-steps/ http://pandodaily.com/2013/07/26/how-to-slaughter-a-patent-t...)
  - reddit_clone 13y ago
    A very clever troll then?
throwawaykf 13y ago
Naming and shaming won't in the least affect people like Spangenberg: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/newegg-on-trial-mystery-company-tqp-re-writes-the-history-of-encryption/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/newegg-on-trial-m...
joshdotsmith 13y ago
The patent troll behind this, Eileen Shapiro, has a book on management on Amazon. Laughable. http://www.amazon.com/Fad-Surfing-Boardroom-Managing-Instant/dp/0201441950/ http://www.amazon.com/Fad-Surfing-Boardroom-Managing-Instant... I'd also like to point out that she's on the Board of Advisors for marketing/PR agency HB Agency: http://www.hbagency.com/about-us/board-of-advisors/ http://www.hbagency.com/about-us/board-of-advisors/

taspeotis 13y ago

FindTheBest destroys patent troll (arstechnica.com) 18 points by sieva 2 hours ago | flag | cached | share | 1 comment Actual article title: FindTheBest destroys “matchmaking” patent, pushes RICO case against troll

alextingle 13y ago
How does this comment further the discussion?
- taspeotis 13y ago
  alextingle 29 minutes ago | link How does this comment further the discussion? I'm pointing out the title doesn't match reality. The patent is "destroyed", not the company. There's nothing to suggest the company is in trouble. How significant is this patent being smacked down in court? How many patents does the company have? Is this the only one? Do they have 50? Maybe you could contribute some answers and further the discussion?

jakejake 13y ago

I am so cheering on FTB and salivating for a sweet, sweet verdict against the patent troll. Seeing someone like Eileen Shapiro named and shamed plus forced to pay $200k court costs would be the most wonderful Christmas gift ever!

happywolf 13y ago

I don't see any indication the troll is destroyed.

ExpiredLink 13y ago

It's important to see the long-term strategy behind software-patents. Currently we are in phase 1, the "Wild West". Anyone is free to grab some land and claim ownership. Gradually more civilized procedures will be developed to acquire (intellectual) property. But make no mistake. Software patents are in the interest of the dominating classes in the US and will be established. Two convincing arguments: Software patents 1. create revenue for the patent holders. 2. can be used to deter foreign competitors or at least to 'tax' them with patent fees. tl;dr: unfortunately poor prospects for the anti-patent league.

drzaiusapelord 13y ago

So what? Right now the USPTO is approving hundreds of other useless patents of marginal value and expects the courts to figure out their validity. Without reform these wins are just morale boosters and nothing else.

mistercow 13y ago
Morale boosters are potentially helpful, though. If the perception shifts from "hopeless" to "fighting chance", and we start seeing more trolls defeated in court, the story can be framed much more usefully. Right now it's "businesses are being shaken down for violating frivolous patents". That's not great because it's too easy to argue against superficially. All the trolls have to say is "If these patents are so frivolous, why do so many businesses agree to settle out of court?" There's a good answer to that question, but now you're having a debate, so you've already lost. But if the story is "the courts are clogged with frivolous patent suits because the USPTO isn't doing its damned job", there is no debate. People don't like to think. They want someone else to do the thinking for them. If a debate has no tribal affiliation, the two sides both seem to have an argument, and there's no authoritative answer, people throw up their hands and say "well, it's complicated". Change the story so that the courts can be that authority, and people will just take their answer as read. So the issue stops being "are patent trolls a problem?" and becomes "how do we fix patent trolling?"

girvo 13y ago

Love the judge's comment here: > "There is no inventive idea here," she wrote in her order. > "Having two or more parties input preference data is not inventive. > Matchmakers have been doing this for millennia... It is merely a > mathematical manifestation of the underlying process behind matchmaking: > determining good matches." A judge that uses the "computer algorithms == maths", and uses it to shut down a shitty patent? Awesome! I wish there were more judges like Judge Denise Colt. Well done.

randartie 13y ago
Judge Denise Cote* (not Cole)
- girvo 13y ago
  I actually had Colt, not Cole ;) Cheers! I knew I was going to misspell it for some reason...
mtgx 13y ago
If only USPTO would include such logic in their patent reviews before passing those patents. A good portion of such patents could've been banned with the new bill against patent trolls, if only companies like Microsoft and IBM wouldn't have lobbied so hard against such reform.

callmeed 13y ago

Makes me wonder if said troll slipped up when targeting FindTheBest. I'm assuming a troll wants to go after someone who is big enough to pay some money but not so big that they can afford to fight. FindTheBest's founder was formerly founder/CEO of DoubleClick. I'm not sure going after someone with a VC background and a 10-figure exit to Google was very wise.

adamnemecek 13y ago

Not that it's relevant to anything but it appears that Eileen Shapiro has written a book http://www.amazon.com/Make-Your-Own-Luck-Practical-ebook/dp/B000OI1ABQ/ http://www.amazon.com/Make-Your-Own-Luck-Practical-ebook/dp/... EDIT: *books http://www.amazon.com/Fad-Surfing-In-The-Boardroom/dp/0201441950/ http://www.amazon.com/Fad-Surfing-In-The-Boardroom/dp/020144...

tzs 13y ago

I don't see how a RICO case can possibly work, unless perhaps the plaintiff can show that the defendant committed fraud on the patent office.

lifeformed 13y ago

Unfortunately they still paid a big price in legal fees. Can anyone tell me what the downsides are to a loser-pays-the-fees system? I heard it's used in the UK but not in the US. What gives?

nucleardog 13y ago
If you're down for a bit of light reading: http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=923 http://www.legalaffairs.org/printerfriendly.msp?id=923
- Tomte 13y ago
  Many of those "problems" really don't seem to exist in Germany. I guess part of it stems from the common law system, but I'm not sure.
DanBC 13y ago
There's a downside to the UK system. You have to pay the costs, even if you win, if: i) You're offered an out of court settlement and ii) You reject it and iii) the settlement is more than the damages you are awarded by the court This is to make sure that people try to settle things before going to court. And I'm not sure how it would work for a non-practising entity. A company that has no assets apart from the patent that they're suing for would have no money to pay fees if they lose.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  Undercapitalization in the absence of liability insurance could be grounds for piercing the corporate veil.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    It can? Has that actually happened (in the UK or US), or been argued, ever? Can you cite a source?

anoncow 13y ago

> Even this "efficient" win cost FTB about $200,000 in legal fees, said Seigle; that's four times more than the $50,000 payout that Lumen View was asking for.

ghshephard 13y ago

From US District Judge Denise Cote: "Taking basic practices in human commerce and culture and adding "do it on a computer" language ... would lead to the absurd result of allowing the patenting [of] the computerized use of even the most basic abstract ideas." Indeed.

keithpeter 13y ago

"Merely directing a computer to perform a function does not transform the computer into a specialized computer. Such a principle would lead to the absurd result of allowing the patenting [of] the computerized use of even the most basic abstract ideas." What a sensible judge they had. Perhaps noting that the rest of the world most certainly does not allow patents of quite this type might focus a few minds. This parasitic business opportunity (trolling) might be costing US its innovation lead...

jpmattia 13y ago

> From the judges order: Nothing in the ‘073 patent evinces an inventive idea beyond the idea of the patent holder to be the first to patent the computerization of a fundamental process that has occurred all through human history." It strikes me that a large number of patents would evaporate if this standard were more universally applied.

YokoZar 13y ago

It may be naiive optimism, but I hope the RICO suit has some success. A thin veneer of legalism in an obviously bogus patent shouldn't be enough to make one immune entirely from racketeering charges. By way of comparison, if I threatened to file bogus nuisance suits hoping for quick settlements for anything other than patent infringement, I very well could be held liable (and disbarred) under all manner of existing precedents.