4 ms·

alternate title: patent troll fails at attempted extortion

bootload 17y ago
"... patent troll fails at attempted extortion ..." when you mention patent troll I think Nathan Myhrvold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Myhrvold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Myhrvold) not Ric Richardson. Ric actually builds stuff and to characterise him as an extortionist is opinion only. "... To me, the money is important only in so far as it allows me to further my ideas. ..." (http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/technology/how-the-man-in-a-van-outsmarted-microsoft/2009/04/19/1240079538770.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/technology/how-the-man-in...) To me a patent troll is someone who buys patents then threatens the alleged infringer with profit in mind. That describes Nathan Myhrvold (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/09/08/1731257/Intellectual-Ventures-Patent-Protection-Racket?from=rss http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/09/08/1731257/Intellectual-...) and Intellectual Ventures. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures) The fact that Nathan is a former Microsoft CTO also hints at the culture of Microsoft. Where does that leave Uniloc? Just how do companies who create strategic technology with an entrepreneurial eye approach potential buyers without being ripped off? Microsoft has prior form ripping off competitors (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22microsoft+ripped+off++*%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22microsoft+ripped+off++*%22) and Uniloc another victim. Ric Richardson has form for building stuff. Lets see who continues to be the troll?
- tumult 17y ago
  No, sorry. His patent is ridiculous. It's trolling – cast a wide net and set the cruise control. Sue and hope you get lucky. You might make a buck off the broken system! Blatant example of why software patents should be abolished in general.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    can you explain what happened to me: the only story I read is that he showed MS his patented tech in 1993 and they turned it down and re-implemented it themselves. Im guessing that is in no way the full unbiased story from what your saying; got any good links?
    - tumult 17y ago
      He had a patent granted in 1996 that covers: product activation, shareware, and machine ID locking. There's not really much else to say, it's idiotic. The Age has no idea of how much damage this would have done to an already battered set of affairs, had the ruling been let to stand. It's shameful they're propping this moron up onto a pedestal.
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        Cool thanks. I totally agree with you. Though I wonder if there is the argument that he is using this patent right... if he did show his specific work to Microsoft and they subsequently implemented it themselves would you not agree he was ripped off by them? Now, if he had this patent and was suing any old company left right and centre I would join you in calling him a moron (he could well take that approach in the future - then he would be a moron). Right now I am seeing a tiny sliver of validity in his claim (if what appears to have happened is true). I'd argue in this case the patent is doing what it is supposed too (though the outcome didn't go quite right).
        tumult 17y ago
        It doesn't matter who he targets with it, it's completely wrong. It sets the wrong precedent in every way. Why should it be "ok" for him to target Microsoft with it, but not some smaller developer? There's no validity to his claim, this "news report" is totally biased. He patented stuff that had been going on since the 80s and then immediately turned to sue the biggest company he could find, hoping to win a payout. The jury sided with the "little guy" and the judge threw out the verdict based on their bias. (I think that's what happened, anyway.) I'm assuming he can appeal, but I hope it he doesn't fare any better this time.
        ErrantX 17y ago
        Im confused; dont you think he has a right to feel cross Microsoft screwed him (if that is what happened)? The rest of what your saying is irrelevant (I agree: patents used in a broad way are evil) because it appears he has a specific complaint against a specific company :) not a general attempt to enforce his/a patent? I get the impression you haven't read the background? It does appear MS might well have done an injustice by him in '93. If that is what he is trying to right; then I guess I support him. If he is, as you suggesting, just trying to sue his patent all over the place (which I see no evidence for yet) then I am with you totally. I worry that the patent trolling leaves cases like this, where there seems the makings of a reasonable complaint, out high and dry :(
rbanffy 17y ago
You didn't read the article, did you? A patent troll is, basically, an NPE. In other words, it's someone who does not make anything, only patents or buys patents without ever attempting to make stuff. This shields the troll from any possible violation on its own part while makes PEs vulnerable to its lawsuits. This guy patents stuff, but also builds things. He should not be considered a troll. And, BTW, while obvious now, could not be so in 1993. In fact, I am unaware of any prior art showing its features.

"... patent troll fails at attempted extortion ..." when you mention patent troll I think Nathan Myhrvold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Myhrvold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Myhrvold) not Ric Richardson. Ric actually builds stuff and to characterise him as an extortionist is opinion only. "... To me, the money is important only in so far as it allows me to further my ideas. ..." (http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/technology/how-the-man-in-a-van-outsmarted-microsoft/2009/04/19/1240079538770.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/technology/how-the-man-in...) To me a patent troll is someone who buys patents then threatens the alleged infringer with profit in mind. That describes Nathan Myhrvold (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/09/08/1731257/Intellectual-Ventures-Patent-Protection-Racket?from=rss http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/09/08/1731257/Intellectual-...) and Intellectual Ventures. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures) The fact that Nathan is a former Microsoft CTO also hints at the culture of Microsoft. Where does that leave Uniloc? Just how do companies who create strategic technology with an entrepreneurial eye approach potential buyers without being ripped off? Microsoft has prior form ripping off competitors (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22microsoft+ripped+off++*%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22microsoft+ripped+off++*%22) and Uniloc another victim. Ric Richardson has form for building stuff. Lets see who continues to be the troll?

tumult 17y ago
No, sorry. His patent is ridiculous. It's trolling – cast a wide net and set the cruise control. Sue and hope you get lucky. You might make a buck off the broken system! Blatant example of why software patents should be abolished in general.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  can you explain what happened to me: the only story I read is that he showed MS his patented tech in 1993 and they turned it down and re-implemented it themselves. Im guessing that is in no way the full unbiased story from what your saying; got any good links?
  - tumult 17y ago
    He had a patent granted in 1996 that covers: product activation, shareware, and machine ID locking. There's not really much else to say, it's idiotic. The Age has no idea of how much damage this would have done to an already battered set of affairs, had the ruling been let to stand. It's shameful they're propping this moron up onto a pedestal.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      Cool thanks. I totally agree with you. Though I wonder if there is the argument that he is using this patent right... if he did show his specific work to Microsoft and they subsequently implemented it themselves would you not agree he was ripped off by them? Now, if he had this patent and was suing any old company left right and centre I would join you in calling him a moron (he could well take that approach in the future - then he would be a moron). Right now I am seeing a tiny sliver of validity in his claim (if what appears to have happened is true). I'd argue in this case the patent is doing what it is supposed too (though the outcome didn't go quite right).
      - tumult 17y ago
        It doesn't matter who he targets with it, it's completely wrong. It sets the wrong precedent in every way. Why should it be "ok" for him to target Microsoft with it, but not some smaller developer? There's no validity to his claim, this "news report" is totally biased. He patented stuff that had been going on since the 80s and then immediately turned to sue the biggest company he could find, hoping to win a payout. The jury sided with the "little guy" and the judge threw out the verdict based on their bias. (I think that's what happened, anyway.) I'm assuming he can appeal, but I hope it he doesn't fare any better this time.
        ErrantX 17y ago
        Im confused; dont you think he has a right to feel cross Microsoft screwed him (if that is what happened)? The rest of what your saying is irrelevant (I agree: patents used in a broad way are evil) because it appears he has a specific complaint against a specific company :) not a general attempt to enforce his/a patent? I get the impression you haven't read the background? It does appear MS might well have done an injustice by him in '93. If that is what he is trying to right; then I guess I support him. If he is, as you suggesting, just trying to sue his patent all over the place (which I see no evidence for yet) then I am with you totally. I worry that the patent trolling leaves cases like this, where there seems the makings of a reasonable complaint, out high and dry :(

rbanffy 17y ago

You didn't read the article, did you? A patent troll is, basically, an NPE. In other words, it's someone who does not make anything, only patents or buys patents without ever attempting to make stuff. This shields the troll from any possible violation on its own part while makes PEs vulnerable to its lawsuits. This guy patents stuff, but also builds things. He should not be considered a troll. And, BTW, while obvious now, could not be so in 1993. In fact, I am unaware of any prior art showing its features.