9 ms·

Patent troll CEO explains why company wants names of EFF donors

127 points by paulgb 13y ago

latj 13y ago
That reminds me, its been a while since I've donated to EFF. https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://supporters.eff.org/donate
HeroesGrave 13y ago
If they refuse to comment on something without a proper reason, anything else they've said is BS.
- sokoloff 13y ago
  So their First Amendment right isn't worth defending? The right to speak has to include the corresponding right to transmit silence.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    I haven't read TFA, but generally, the right to speak doesn't include the right to not have your speech considered BS, though.
  - HeroesGrave 13y ago
    My reasoning was that if they refuse to admit they are attacking someone out of greed, then the rest of what they say is BS designed to make them look like the good guys.
jrockway 13y ago
Is there any way I can donate specifically to appear on this list? I enjoy trolling trolls, and if the EFF gets some extra money, I'm certainly not going to complain.
- latimer 13y ago
  Not sure if you can still donate but this is the link to the fundraiser: https://supporters.eff.org/donate/save-podcasting https://supporters.eff.org/donate/save-podcasting
  - jrockway 13y ago
    It worked.
rdl 13y ago
I'm kind of amazed people like Ian Samuels (who represented Lavabit at the recent hearing) and Brad Liddle (this patent troll) exist in the same profession. And depressingly, I suspect Liddle makes a lot more money.
brubaker 13y ago
This is exactly why they shouldn't do any PR. They should just try and make as much money as they can before they are rightfully forced into extinction.
rhizome 13y ago
Interesting, they apparently want to force this case to be considered a class-action WRT EFF's donors?
throwawaykf03 13y ago
This is why I hate Internet reporting of patent cases: > Given that there's no question Internet broadcasting pre-dated Logan's business, Ars asked if Liddle and his colleagues at Personal Audio felt that it was justifiable to keep pursuing small podcasters for royalty payments. "I'm not going to comment on that," he said. 1) The patents are not on "Internet broadcasting". They are, effectively, despite claim oversimplification being the primary sin in discussing patents, on skipping episodes of audio content. That is it. If you want to find relevant prior art, you don't go about looking for "Internet broadcasting", you look for things that involve audio content that is episodic and can be skipped from episode to episode with a user command. Yes, really. 2) The prior art that EFF dug up, if it is indeed on "Internet broadcasting", is probably not relevant to this patent. 3) Personal Audio is arguing Estoppel. Estoppel, overly simplified, means what you say and do can be used against you. 4) If you consider 2) and 3) it's highly ironic then, that Ars asks the lawyer a question that would effectively do nothing other than create estoppel for himself. Conveniently, the article gets to present that as a shady response. But consider this: whatever he may say offhand about the prior art Ars mentioned can work against him. This is the same principle as "Don't talk to the police" that gets parroted so often around here: Don't say anything without having thoroughly thought it through beforehand. As an oversimplified example: The lawyer may have said something like "That is just Internet broadcasting. This patent covers something else like skipping episodes". An opposing lawyer can then argue, "Defendant does Internet broadcasting, but plaintiff's lawyer just implied these patents don't cover Internet broadcasting." 5) Askpatents.com is much better for this work, because dedicated users (shoutout to Micah Siegel) take efforts to describe in plain english and as precisely as possible, the claims and what prior art should contain. Anything less than that devolves (as it does on HN or Slashdot) to discussions of completely irrelevant prior art. 6) Relevant prior art may actually lie in the domain of simple digital audio players, because those have had skipping of content for, like, ever. Problem is, these claims use "means for doing XYZ" in their language. This, while sounding extremely broad, is paradoxically narrow, because "means for" is now interpreted to cover only exactly the methods described in the specification. But anything that skipped episodes of content is what we want. While I am strongly pro-patent, I completely accept there are flaws in the system. The article implies the patents are overbroad, but the reality is they are narrow enough to be literally inconsequential, but impart an over-inflated worth because of the legal environment. However, reporting like this twists the issues and actually impedes progress. If, for example, you called your Congress-people (hah!) and complained saying "How can there be a patent on Internet broadcasting?!", they would consult with someone who actually knows how patents worked, who would then say, "Well, it's not really a patent on Internet broadcasting per se...", and that's all the politician needs to bucket you in along with the old lady who keeps calling up about the UFOs in her backyard. OK, I'm stretching it with the politician scenario and have no experience with politics. But am I far off?
droithomme 13y ago
Here is the text of the patent: http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504 http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504 Here is a summary of the patent and a discussion of prior art: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3884/disseminating-media-content-representing-episodes-issued-patent-prior-art-requ http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3884/disseminatin...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
plink 13y ago
Is there any organization encouraging Texas' secession from the Union? If there is, maybe we should just make donations to them.
linuxhansl 13y ago
Patent troll and lawyer parasitic scum. What else is new? This will go until patent law is changed to make this no longer economically viable.

127 points by paulgb 13y ago

latj 13y ago

That reminds me, its been a while since I've donated to EFF. https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://supporters.eff.org/donate

HeroesGrave 13y ago

If they refuse to comment on something without a proper reason, anything else they've said is BS.

sokoloff 13y ago
So their First Amendment right isn't worth defending? The right to speak has to include the corresponding right to transmit silence.
- icebraining 13y ago
  I haven't read TFA, but generally, the right to speak doesn't include the right to not have your speech considered BS, though.
- HeroesGrave 13y ago
  My reasoning was that if they refuse to admit they are attacking someone out of greed, then the rest of what they say is BS designed to make them look like the good guys.

jrockway 13y ago

Is there any way I can donate specifically to appear on this list? I enjoy trolling trolls, and if the EFF gets some extra money, I'm certainly not going to complain.

latimer 13y ago
Not sure if you can still donate but this is the link to the fundraiser: https://supporters.eff.org/donate/save-podcasting https://supporters.eff.org/donate/save-podcasting
- jrockway 13y ago
  It worked.

rdl 13y ago

I'm kind of amazed people like Ian Samuels (who represented Lavabit at the recent hearing) and Brad Liddle (this patent troll) exist in the same profession. And depressingly, I suspect Liddle makes a lot more money.

brubaker 13y ago

This is exactly why they shouldn't do any PR. They should just try and make as much money as they can before they are rightfully forced into extinction.

rhizome 13y ago

Interesting, they apparently want to force this case to be considered a class-action WRT EFF's donors?

throwawaykf03 13y ago

This is why I hate Internet reporting of patent cases: > Given that there's no question Internet broadcasting pre-dated Logan's business, Ars asked if Liddle and his colleagues at Personal Audio felt that it was justifiable to keep pursuing small podcasters for royalty payments. "I'm not going to comment on that," he said. 1) The patents are not on "Internet broadcasting". They are, effectively, despite claim oversimplification being the primary sin in discussing patents, on skipping episodes of audio content. That is it. If you want to find relevant prior art, you don't go about looking for "Internet broadcasting", you look for things that involve audio content that is episodic and can be skipped from episode to episode with a user command. Yes, really. 2) The prior art that EFF dug up, if it is indeed on "Internet broadcasting", is probably not relevant to this patent. 3) Personal Audio is arguing Estoppel. Estoppel, overly simplified, means what you say and do can be used against you. 4) If you consider 2) and 3) it's highly ironic then, that Ars asks the lawyer a question that would effectively do nothing other than create estoppel for himself. Conveniently, the article gets to present that as a shady response. But consider this: whatever he may say offhand about the prior art Ars mentioned can work against him. This is the same principle as "Don't talk to the police" that gets parroted so often around here: Don't say anything without having thoroughly thought it through beforehand. As an oversimplified example: The lawyer may have said something like "That is just Internet broadcasting. This patent covers something else like skipping episodes". An opposing lawyer can then argue, "Defendant does Internet broadcasting, but plaintiff's lawyer just implied these patents don't cover Internet broadcasting." 5) Askpatents.com is much better for this work, because dedicated users (shoutout to Micah Siegel) take efforts to describe in plain english and as precisely as possible, the claims and what prior art should contain. Anything less than that devolves (as it does on HN or Slashdot) to discussions of completely irrelevant prior art. 6) Relevant prior art may actually lie in the domain of simple digital audio players, because those have had skipping of content for, like, ever. Problem is, these claims use "means for doing XYZ" in their language. This, while sounding extremely broad, is paradoxically narrow, because "means for" is now interpreted to cover only exactly the methods described in the specification. But anything that skipped episodes of content is what we want. While I am strongly pro-patent, I completely accept there are flaws in the system. The article implies the patents are overbroad, but the reality is they are narrow enough to be literally inconsequential, but impart an over-inflated worth because of the legal environment. However, reporting like this twists the issues and actually impedes progress. If, for example, you called your Congress-people (hah!) and complained saying "How can there be a patent on Internet broadcasting?!", they would consult with someone who actually knows how patents worked, who would then say, "Well, it's not really a patent on Internet broadcasting per se...", and that's all the politician needs to bucket you in along with the old lady who keeps calling up about the UFOs in her backyard. OK, I'm stretching it with the politician scenario and have no experience with politics. But am I far off?

droithomme 13y ago

Here is the text of the patent: http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504 http://www.google.com/patents/US8112504 Here is a summary of the patent and a discussion of prior art: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3884/disseminating-media-content-representing-episodes-issued-patent-prior-art-requ http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/3884/disseminatin...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

plink 13y ago

Is there any organization encouraging Texas' secession from the Union? If there is, maybe we should just make donations to them.

linuxhansl 13y ago

Patent troll and lawyer parasitic scum. What else is new? This will go until patent law is changed to make this no longer economically viable.