5 ms·

One insider describes how trial lawyers killed patent reform

59 points by ossama 12y ago

jaxhax 12y ago
The 'insider' complaining here is -- Oracle?? That would be the Oracle that is No. 58 in the PTO's list of the top 100 most prolific patenters? Who is the troll here?
- ScottBurson 12y ago
  Number of patents filed doesn't by itself mean anything. These days, companies have to amass large patent portfolios for defensive purposes, if nothing else. Failure to do so would get them sued by their shareholders. The question is to what extent they use their patents aggressively, and how good a case they have when they do so. I don't know the answer in Oracle's case (and I'm no great fan of the company) but again, mere numbers of patents won't tell you that.
- throwawaykf05 12y ago
  1. Having patents and enforcing them does not make you a troll. It's generally understood that trolls are non-practicing entities. Unfortunately, people frequently use the word as a derogatory term for "someone who uses patents in a way I don't like" (which often really means "someone who uses patents for their intended purpose, which I don't like on principle"), making it lack any real meaning. 2. That someone as litigious as Oracle was supporting this should tell you something: that this effort had little to do with "reforming patents" and more to do with "large corporations managing risk".
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > Having patents and enforcing them does not make you a troll. It's generally understood that trolls are non-practicing entities. Apple and Microsoft have managed to turn that line thoroughly into mud by weaponizing patent trolling as a tool to wage proxy wars. > Unfortunately, people frequently use the word as a derogatory term for "someone who uses patents in a way I don't like" (which often really means "someone who uses patents for their intended purpose, which I don't like on principle"), making it lack any real meaning. Patent trolling as a practice has quite clear contours: The perpetrator alleges patent infringement and demands a license fee which is less than the cost of proving non-infringement or patent invalidity in court, leaving the victim having to either pay the troll the Danegeld regardless of infringement or pay even more to their own lawyers to prove otherwise. > That someone as litigious as Oracle was supporting this should tell you something: that this effort had little to do with "reforming patents" and more to do with "large corporations managing risk". Your explanation is belied by the number of patent nastygrams received by startups that can hardly be described as "large corporations." That we see Oracle on the side of reform next to the likes of Red Hat and the EFF only goes to the severity of the problem.
    - fpgeek 12y ago
      > Apple and Microsoft have managed to turn that line thoroughly into mud by weaponizing patent trolling as a tool to wage proxy wars. Which is why I favor calling them patent ogres, not patent trolls. What Apple and Microsoft (most notably among others) are doing is different, but similarly troubling.
      - rayiner 12y ago
        Apple and Microsoft own an NPE: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockstar_Consortium http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockstar_Consortium
        throwawaykf05 12y ago
        Rockstar claim to have made commitments to the DOJ and FTC to operate independently [1]. What do you make of that? 1. http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=2a10f894-6812-44b5-a01c-d64562c4310f http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=2a10f894-6812-4... (ctrl-f "commitments")
    - throwawaykf05 12y ago
      > Apple and Microsoft have managed to turn that line thoroughly into mud by weaponizing patent trolling as a tool to wage proxy wars. 1. Apple and MS have historically sued competitors with their own patents, which typically they practice themselves. 2. The only conceivable "proxy" may be Rockstar, and they claim to operate independently. If they didn't, well, the DOJ and FTC would be mighty interested [1]. >Patent trolling as a practice has quite clear contours:... And my point was, Oracle clearly don't fit the bill. Heck, even IV don't fit that bill, because they apparently ask for pretty large licensing fees. >Your explanation is belied by the number of patent nastygrams received by startups that can hardly be described as "large corporations." Outside of cherrypicked media reports, there is insufficient empirical evidence that trolls target startups. I've been tracking trolls for a while, and trolls that go after the little guys are actually rare. The moment they do, there's inevitably some media outrage, and the number of unique trolls so far have been few (lodsys, scanner trolls, WiFi trolls... Fotomedia / photo sharing trolls about 7 years back... Any more?) By and large these pick on larger companies, because that's where the big money is. 1. http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=2a10f894-6812-44b5-a01c-d64562c4310f http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=2a10f894-6812-4... (ctrl-f "commitments")
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
pdabbadabba 12y ago
The article doesn't deliver on the sensationalist title. Here is all the evidence that this "insider" provides us: "TL: What triggered the decision to call the game off? KG: I can only guess it was the trial lawyers. Why? Because they lost at every turn. If winning the debate wasn't an option, they were just going to call the game off. Which is apparently what they did." Glueck may be right, but this is nothing but speculation. Moreover, it is speculation unaided by any more information than the general public has. We all know that trial lawyers would, logically, dislike patent reform, so of course they're a natural suspect when it gets scuttled.
rayiner 12y ago
> KG: I can only guess it was the trial lawyers. Why? Because they lost at every turn. If winning the debate wasn't an option, they were just going to call the game off. Which is apparently what they did. Is that a "description of how trial lawyers killed patent reform" or a "I can only guess?" The article paints this picture that "trial lawyers" can kill whatever bill they want. But the narrative is facially implausible. You're supposed to believe that trial lawyers get their way by throwing a lot of money around. But they don't have the kind of money Silicon Valley companies have. If it were just a matter of lobbying and money, the companies interested in patent reform could steamroll over the trial lawyers and the trolls. Ars had some good coverage of this that paints a clearer picture. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/gridlock-strikes-again-as-anti-patent-troll-bill-dies-in-us-senate http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/gridlock-strikes-.... Specifically, they note: "Early this morning, several groups opposing the bill denounced those provisions, promising they would be united in their opposition to any bill that included them. 'Many of the provisions would have the effect of treating every patent holder as a patent troll,' read a letter sent out by the Innovation Alliance, which was signed by the American Association of Universities and the biotechnology trade group BIO." Meanwhile, this is the message that Apple, Microsoft, DuPont, Ford, IBM, and Pfizer endorsed just 10 days before the bill was killed: "According to these arguments, 'patent trolls' are bringing businesses to a complete halt and that software patents are a barrier to innovation. Some pundits even equate 'patent troll' litigation with the legitimate legal interests of inventors who are defending their intellectual property. The same anecdotes and flawed studies are trotted out time and again to the delight of those who wish to substantially restrict the patent rights of operating companies in favor of their own narrow business interests. What these sound bites don’t tell you is that the cost of reducing or eliminating the incentives for innovation would be devastating for nearly all sectors of the U.S. economy. Worse, it could make slow growth permanent by ceding our position as a global high-tech leader to foreign competitors." See: http://partnershipforamericaninnovation.org/category/frompai http://partnershipforamericaninnovation.org/category/frompai See also: http://wallstcheatsheet.com/technology/apple-microsoft-and-others-push-back-against-proposed-patent-law-changes.html/?a=viewall http://wallstcheatsheet.com/technology/apple-microsoft-and-o... If you think this is about money, follow the money. Companies with a trillion dollars of market cap come together to say "we think the patent system is great" weeks before the bill is killed. Companies like Qualcomm sign a letter opposing the bill the morning before its killed. Who do you think has the money?
linuxhansl 12y ago
While the article is a bit short on detail, it looks like what it will take for our politician to act is most innovation moving out of the US. Currently that does not happen, because here is where all the investors are, where all the money is; but that climate can change quickly. My guess is that politicians will act then, but by then it will be too late. In all that we keep forgetting again and again why patents exist: To protect an investment by granting a temporary monopoly. It's not to make lawyers rich, nor is it to prevent newcomers entering an existing market; and they also don't exist to make money for entities that just purchased some random patent.
- DanBC 12y ago
  > While the article is a bit short on detail, it looks like what it will take for our politician to act is most innovation moving out of the US. Currently that does not happen, because here is where all the investors are, where all the money is; but that climate can change quickly Of for some troll to file business patents around political fundraising and campaigning and then trolls to scoop up some of that campaign funding.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

59 points by ossama 12y ago

The 'insider' complaining here is -- Oracle?? That would be the Oracle that is No. 58 in the PTO's list of the top 100 most prolific patenters? Who is the troll here?

ScottBurson 12y ago
Number of patents filed doesn't by itself mean anything. These days, companies have to amass large patent portfolios for defensive purposes, if nothing else. Failure to do so would get them sued by their shareholders. The question is to what extent they use their patents aggressively, and how good a case they have when they do so. I don't know the answer in Oracle's case (and I'm no great fan of the company) but again, mere numbers of patents won't tell you that.
throwawaykf05 12y ago
1. Having patents and enforcing them does not make you a troll. It's generally understood that trolls are non-practicing entities. Unfortunately, people frequently use the word as a derogatory term for "someone who uses patents in a way I don't like" (which often really means "someone who uses patents for their intended purpose, which I don't like on principle"), making it lack any real meaning. 2. That someone as litigious as Oracle was supporting this should tell you something: that this effort had little to do with "reforming patents" and more to do with "large corporations managing risk".
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > Having patents and enforcing them does not make you a troll. It's generally understood that trolls are non-practicing entities. Apple and Microsoft have managed to turn that line thoroughly into mud by weaponizing patent trolling as a tool to wage proxy wars. > Unfortunately, people frequently use the word as a derogatory term for "someone who uses patents in a way I don't like" (which often really means "someone who uses patents for their intended purpose, which I don't like on principle"), making it lack any real meaning. Patent trolling as a practice has quite clear contours: The perpetrator alleges patent infringement and demands a license fee which is less than the cost of proving non-infringement or patent invalidity in court, leaving the victim having to either pay the troll the Danegeld regardless of infringement or pay even more to their own lawyers to prove otherwise. > That someone as litigious as Oracle was supporting this should tell you something: that this effort had little to do with "reforming patents" and more to do with "large corporations managing risk". Your explanation is belied by the number of patent nastygrams received by startups that can hardly be described as "large corporations." That we see Oracle on the side of reform next to the likes of Red Hat and the EFF only goes to the severity of the problem.
  - fpgeek 12y ago
    > Apple and Microsoft have managed to turn that line thoroughly into mud by weaponizing patent trolling as a tool to wage proxy wars. Which is why I favor calling them patent ogres, not patent trolls. What Apple and Microsoft (most notably among others) are doing is different, but similarly troubling.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      Apple and Microsoft own an NPE: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockstar_Consortium http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockstar_Consortium
      - throwawaykf05 12y ago
        Rockstar claim to have made commitments to the DOJ and FTC to operate independently [1]. What do you make of that? 1. http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=2a10f894-6812-44b5-a01c-d64562c4310f http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=2a10f894-6812-4... (ctrl-f "commitments")
  - throwawaykf05 12y ago
    > Apple and Microsoft have managed to turn that line thoroughly into mud by weaponizing patent trolling as a tool to wage proxy wars. 1. Apple and MS have historically sued competitors with their own patents, which typically they practice themselves. 2. The only conceivable "proxy" may be Rockstar, and they claim to operate independently. If they didn't, well, the DOJ and FTC would be mighty interested [1]. >Patent trolling as a practice has quite clear contours:... And my point was, Oracle clearly don't fit the bill. Heck, even IV don't fit that bill, because they apparently ask for pretty large licensing fees. >Your explanation is belied by the number of patent nastygrams received by startups that can hardly be described as "large corporations." Outside of cherrypicked media reports, there is insufficient empirical evidence that trolls target startups. I've been tracking trolls for a while, and trolls that go after the little guys are actually rare. The moment they do, there's inevitably some media outrage, and the number of unique trolls so far have been few (lodsys, scanner trolls, WiFi trolls... Fotomedia / photo sharing trolls about 7 years back... Any more?) By and large these pick on larger companies, because that's where the big money is. 1. http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=2a10f894-6812-44b5-a01c-d64562c4310f http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=2a10f894-6812-4... (ctrl-f "commitments")
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

pdabbadabba 12y ago

The article doesn't deliver on the sensationalist title. Here is all the evidence that this "insider" provides us: "TL: What triggered the decision to call the game off? KG: I can only guess it was the trial lawyers. Why? Because they lost at every turn. If winning the debate wasn't an option, they were just going to call the game off. Which is apparently what they did." Glueck may be right, but this is nothing but speculation. Moreover, it is speculation unaided by any more information than the general public has. We all know that trial lawyers would, logically, dislike patent reform, so of course they're a natural suspect when it gets scuttled.

rayiner 12y ago

> KG: I can only guess it was the trial lawyers. Why? Because they lost at every turn. If winning the debate wasn't an option, they were just going to call the game off. Which is apparently what they did. Is that a "description of how trial lawyers killed patent reform" or a "I can only guess?" The article paints this picture that "trial lawyers" can kill whatever bill they want. But the narrative is facially implausible. You're supposed to believe that trial lawyers get their way by throwing a lot of money around. But they don't have the kind of money Silicon Valley companies have. If it were just a matter of lobbying and money, the companies interested in patent reform could steamroll over the trial lawyers and the trolls. Ars had some good coverage of this that paints a clearer picture. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/gridlock-strikes-again-as-anti-patent-troll-bill-dies-in-us-senate http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/gridlock-strikes-.... Specifically, they note: "Early this morning, several groups opposing the bill denounced those provisions, promising they would be united in their opposition to any bill that included them. 'Many of the provisions would have the effect of treating every patent holder as a patent troll,' read a letter sent out by the Innovation Alliance, which was signed by the American Association of Universities and the biotechnology trade group BIO." Meanwhile, this is the message that Apple, Microsoft, DuPont, Ford, IBM, and Pfizer endorsed just 10 days before the bill was killed: "According to these arguments, 'patent trolls' are bringing businesses to a complete halt and that software patents are a barrier to innovation. Some pundits even equate 'patent troll' litigation with the legitimate legal interests of inventors who are defending their intellectual property. The same anecdotes and flawed studies are trotted out time and again to the delight of those who wish to substantially restrict the patent rights of operating companies in favor of their own narrow business interests. What these sound bites don’t tell you is that the cost of reducing or eliminating the incentives for innovation would be devastating for nearly all sectors of the U.S. economy. Worse, it could make slow growth permanent by ceding our position as a global high-tech leader to foreign competitors." See: http://partnershipforamericaninnovation.org/category/frompai http://partnershipforamericaninnovation.org/category/frompai See also: http://wallstcheatsheet.com/technology/apple-microsoft-and-others-push-back-against-proposed-patent-law-changes.html/?a=viewall http://wallstcheatsheet.com/technology/apple-microsoft-and-o... If you think this is about money, follow the money. Companies with a trillion dollars of market cap come together to say "we think the patent system is great" weeks before the bill is killed. Companies like Qualcomm sign a letter opposing the bill the morning before its killed. Who do you think has the money?

linuxhansl 12y ago

While the article is a bit short on detail, it looks like what it will take for our politician to act is most innovation moving out of the US. Currently that does not happen, because here is where all the investors are, where all the money is; but that climate can change quickly. My guess is that politicians will act then, but by then it will be too late. In all that we keep forgetting again and again why patents exist: To protect an investment by granting a temporary monopoly. It's not to make lawyers rich, nor is it to prevent newcomers entering an existing market; and they also don't exist to make money for entities that just purchased some random patent.

DanBC 12y ago
> While the article is a bit short on detail, it looks like what it will take for our politician to act is most innovation moving out of the US. Currently that does not happen, because here is where all the investors are, where all the money is; but that climate can change quickly Of for some troll to file business patents around political fundraising and campaigning and then trolls to scoop up some of that campaign funding.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]