Fark Points Out That Even Though It Doesn't Come Close To Infringing On Patent, It Still Has To Go To Court
from the no-easy-dismissals dept
Earlier this year, we wrote about how Fark, Reddit, Digg, Slashdot, TechCrunch and others were sued over a highly questionable patent (6,370,535) concerning a system for creating online news and press releases. Despite calling out to the combined communities of these various sites, no one has yet been able to track down who's really controlling these patents these days (I'm really surprised Reddit folks couldn't break through the layers of obfuscation).Either way, Drew, over at Fark, who notes that he's the only one of the folks sued who isn't backed by a much bigger company, also points out one of the more ridiculous facts about patent lawsuits. Even though Fark does nothing even remotely close to what's in the patent, you can't just point that out and have the case dismissed. Instead, they have to go through with the lawsuit, which may take 18 months or more. And this is one of the big reasons why so many companies -- especially small ones -- just pay up to settle patent infringement claims. A patent lawsuit can kill a small business, even if the patent has nothing whatsoever to do with their business.
Every time we post about patents here, a small group of "independent inventors" come here and claim that the patent system is the greatest thing ever, and anyone who criticizes it must be paid by big companies. Yet I'm curious how they feel about situations like this. Will they just say that Fark must be infringing, or will they admit to the possibility that patents can be misused in lawsuits like this?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Blame Lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blame Lawyers
Every patent thief makes the kind of claims which Fark has made. It is up to the court to decide who is right and wrong. For some reason I think that when the dust settles that Fark will be whining about justice being served just like RIM.
Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am not a lawyer but..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am not a lawyer but..
The best strategy is to counter - sue for patent infringement (assuming you have patents of your own), but then big companies make these smaller patent troll subsidies that conduct no R&D and produce nothing to sue through so that you can't counter sue them for anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am not a lawyer but..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am not a lawyer but..
Damages are based on ? Guess what, actual damages. And then the court looks at the infringer's conduct, and if it was willful they enhance damages to 1.5 or maybe two times and if it was really outrageous damages might be tippled.
RIM was accessed large damages because the court caught them foisting manufactured evidence on the court.
For some reason when courts find that a defendant has tried to commit fraud on them they tend to think that the defendant might be capable of much more wrongdoing.
Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are not a lawyer but..
I assume that the plaintiff is a shell corporation, set up to be dissolved at the first sign of trouble leaving any potential countersue-er like Fark holding the bag for yet more legal fees. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You are not a lawyer but..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You are not a lawyer but..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Possible better question
Little fun history and why the X generation (ie age 20 graduating in 2000) are the perfect people to bring this issue to the front. Little known president President Benjamin Harrison on July 2, 1890 signed the Sherman Act. Its the perfect time we point out the monopoly of a patent.
Btw Mike "to the possibility" is really really needs a strike through tag on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Possible better question
Anti Trust laws are only selectively enforced against companies like Google for doing nothing wrong, the DOJ would hardly ever go after a legitimate case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Possible better question
Section 2 of the Act forbade monopoly. In Section 2 cases, the court has, again on its own initiative, drawn a distinction between coercive and innocent monopoly. The act is not meant to punish businesses that come to dominate their market passively or on their own merit, only those that intentionally dominate the market through misconduct, which generally consists of conspiratorial conduct of the kind forbidden by Section 1 of the Sherman Act, or Section 3 of the Association - wikipedia
I trust that this falls under the misconduct heading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Possible better question
Sometimes the courts are good about not enforcing poorly selected prosecutions, but it can still costs the defendants money.
Google is a good example of a company that's targeted for bogus anti-trust suits (even by the government though plaintiffs sometimes later forget about it once they realize that the courts will likely not take their side), and there were some government initiated, frivolous looking, anti-trust lawsuits against Microsoft over their browser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Possible better question
No, Google is a good example of a young punk of a company who presses all the boundaries. Eventually they will have their wings trimmed, and rightfully so.
Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Possible better question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Possible better question
It's not like noone has ever addressed this before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Possible better question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Possible better question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Possible better question
A patent troll s nothing more or less than an inventor or someone who invested in the inventor who has the gall to defend their property right.
"perfect time we point out the monopoly of a patent."
Good boy, you figured out that a patent is an exclusive right. I suggest that you read article 1, section 8. An inventor buys exclusive use from the government by teaching their invention. Teaching is done with a patent, typically at a cost of at least three years and a hundred thousand dollars and up.
I sincerely hope that all of the X generation is not this poorly informed.
Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Possible better question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Possible better question
I am an inventor and I have most certainly kicked the crap out of corporate patent property thieves.
Even more important is that I have spent over twenty years organizing inventors, teaching them how to defend their rights, and cultivating interest in the legal community for their partnering with aggrieved inventors.
It is clear that many TechDIRT readers follow the herd mentality and do not consider the implications of undermining the patent system.
It is simple, if all of America does not prosper then our standard of living will continue to drop. No patents means that all of our inventions will be taken by big companies to developing countries and all will become commodity items.
That means there would be nothing to allow us to have a higher standard of living then then others.
Small companies use patents to drive higher profits. Higher profits allow higher wages.
Transnational corporations make their profits in large part by stealing from others and every transaction where they are profiting is undermining everyone else. They use their profits to buy cover, one example being their troll media campaign. Another being IBM placing their chief patent counsel in charge of the USPTO. GE placing one of their own, CEO Jeff Immelt as leader the new President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. A Microsoft stooge in Commerce and on and on.
We have the best government transnational corporations can buy. It does not matter which party is in control. We have sovereign nations dancing to the drummer of sovereign corporations.
Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and where are all the mainstream media journalists to figure this stuff out (with all their copy'right' laws to better enable them to afford to dig deeper)? Oh, that's right, big media is part of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People die from gun shots.
Police arrest people that should not arrested.
The courts convict people who are innocent.
People frivolously sue other people for all kinds of reasons.
We should ban cars.
We should ban guns.
We should get rid of law enforcement.
We should end the court system.
All problems will be solved by a completely free and open market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Guns are going to be needed during the revolution.
Law enforcement actually serves a purpose.
The Court system protects a lot of innocent people (see due process).
Patents create monopolies...no wait
Patents hinder innovation...hold on
Patents create incentives to abuse the court system...uhm
Wait, what are patents good for again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The patent system, like almost any system, has potential for abuses. People abuse everything, from food stamps to cutting in line to get into the hottest night club. Any time you have a system, some people will abuse it.
If you only hold out the abuses, it is easy to make people think that the system is broken. But in the patent system, you have millions of patents (7 million plus) and a scant few true abuses. The "error rate" in the patent system is lower than the error rate for heart surgeons.
Remember too, this isn't a failing of the patent system, it's a failing of the US legal system, which does not have any methods for "cutting to the chase".
As the poster above mentioned, we should ban cars, ban guns, and so on, because all of them can be used in bad ways.
Finally, I always ask but never get a very good answer: What do you propose to replace the patent system with? Nothing? I think the unintended consequences of that action would make the current occasional aggressive legal action look like a minor scuffle compared to what would come in a free for all system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The majority of patents never make it to product. Why should those patents be allowed to exist? They either exist
A: For defensive purposes
i)So that you can get the patent before someone else gets it and sues you. IOW, the patent wasn't needed for the invention to exist and obtaining the patent is a waste of money that can go into R&D and better things.
i) Leverage to counter-sue those who sue you for infringement. Again, another misuse of the patent system.
B: Patent trolling. To sue innovators who accidentally infringe on your bogus patent in hopes to make settlement money. Again, another abuse of our patent system.
C: Patent portfolio cross licensing leverage. Again, another abuse of our patent system.
For a patent to exist and not to make it to product does nothing to promote the progress but only wastes money for acquisition and for other purposes and can only be used to make it more difficult for others to bring something to market. Every patent that doesn't make it to product is a patent that shouldn't exist, and does nothing to promote the progress, and is an abuse of the system. The majority of patents are an abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For patent trolling statistics, see Patent Freedom.com/Research.html. These abuses are a serious issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
People/businesses/corporations wouldn't spend so much money acquiring patents that never make it to product if it doesn't do them any good. It does do them good and the good that it does them has little to do with promoting the progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ummm, prove it.
Remember too, this isn't a failing of the patent system, it's a failing of the US legal system, which does not have any methods for "cutting to the chase".
If a patent is awarded and the recipient immediately files suit against multiple companies (in this case 10), how is that not a failing of the patent system? How was a patent granted on something so obvious that 10 other business were already doing it? Some of these companies aren't exactly "no names" in the industry either, any patent examiner looking at software should have heard of at least one of these sites.
What do you propose to replace the patent system with?
Well first, the Supreme Court already ruled against software patents so those shouldn't exist.
Second, no patents on any research or subsequent products were the government provides any portion of the funding.
Third, no patents on anything which exists in nature or which are directly dependent upon something which occurs in nature. (ex. You cannot patent ways to discover the presence of a specific gene if it relies on a receptor existing on a cell. You could patent the machine which actually exposes the cell to something and measures the results.)
Fourth, patents must be renewed every year and the total length of patents must be reduced. Patent length should be examined on a regular basis and be based on independently conducted research.
Fifth, the patent application process needs to be completely revamped. Limit re-examination, limit changes between re-examinations, allow a "final no" after which another application cannot be filed for the same thing, etc.
Last, this is hardly a comprehensive list. I don't think anyone wants to get rid of patents completely but I think most people would argue that the current system benefits no-one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
for an individual to be able to file and maintain a patent, it can't cost too much... but if it doesn't cost enough then the corporations grab 'em up and keep happily paying the fees to do nothing with them, because it benifits their bottom line to do so (or at least so they think.)
the same problem shows itself time and again in fines in the court system of many nations as well. a fine big enough to wreck an indivudal, bankrupt a small business, punish a fairly new company... it's small enough that that plus legal fees is barely a blip on a large multi-national's financial radar, and they generally make so much more money from Breaking the law than they pay in fines for doing so that it just becomes a 'cost of doing business'.
... and some people wonder why i dislike corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is true of the patent war between independent inventors and transnational corporations. The reason that they are blatantly steals others inventions is that it is profitable to do so. While a $100 or $500 million judgment seems like a staggering sum it is small change when compared to their total profits from patent piracy.
These companies promote Patent Reform because their vision of reform is one where they can steal all inventions.
I love being an independent inventor. It allows me to pursue whatever technology which interests me the most. But like everyone I need to pay my own way.
Big companies have not had the will or gumption for a very long time to think beyond one or two quarters. For the good of society someone has to be handling long term planning. Independent inventors and small business does this and we cannot do so unless we receive fair compensation for our work. Big companies see fair as them taking what they want.
Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Depends on what type of patent it is. Many patents are not subject to maintenance fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A: Make all patents subject to maintenance fees
B: Increase the maintenance fees substantially.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Has the law been amended to create exceptions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Given that the majority of patents never make it to product (at least not by the patent holder, if at all), and every patent that doesn't make it to product (preferably by the patent holder, or at the very least by someone authorized by the patent holder) shouldn't exist, I would say that the error rate in the patent system is pretty high. Unless you're arguing that the majority of heart surgeries fail?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I would love to see your numbers on "patent failures". Mike is a pretty aggressive reporter of patent failures, and yet n all of the time of techdirt, I can't see time find more than 1000 or so out of 7 million. That is a very low failure rate.
Now, if you want to make it "any patent that doesn't bring a product to market", that number would be larger. But considering that patents are often building blocks towards a product, or are using as part of the manufacturing process to make a product, it is very difficult to tell.
More importantly, if a patent is granted and then sold to someone else, is the patent itself not a product?
I appreciate all your comments (you see to talk to yourself a lot) but perhaps you want to consider the implications of your ideas before jumping in with both feet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Those building blocks themselves are products. Those patents aren't making it to product period.
"or are using as part of the manufacturing process to make a product, it is very difficult to tell. "
Again, the manufacturing process itself is a product and it's one that these patents aren't making it to. I suspect you know that and are just being disingenuous.
"More importantly, if a patent is granted and then sold to someone else, is the patent itself not a product?"
Now you're just dishonestly obfuscating the issue. When I say that the patent never makes it to product, I am clearly referring to the product that the patent is describing.
Granting patents simply for the sake of selling them to patent trolls is an abuse of our system.
"I appreciate all your comments (you see to talk to yourself a lot) but perhaps you want to consider the implications of your ideas before jumping in with both feet."
You know darn well that I am simply expanding on what I said before. Perhaps you should consider the implications of being dishonest before you comment, and how that will impact how people perceive your ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now you're just dishonestly obfuscating the issue. When I say that the patent never makes it to product, I am clearly referring to the product that the patent is describing.
Granting patents simply for the sake of selling them to patent trolls is an abuse of our system."
It is you who are being dishonest. Patents are a product just like a set of house blueprints. The reason that so called patent trolls are able to buy patents is that big companies, literally whole industries stand together and say they are going to use and go ahead and sue.
Also, one does not ave to manufacture in order to ave produced something of value. The proof of this is in a long stream of court rulings where one big company after another has to invest in personal lube.
Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unused patents aren't a useful product, just something that gets in the way.
"Patents are a product just like a set of house blueprints."
Except unused patents aren't being used as blueprints for anything except possibly to deter others from using similar ideas, most of which would probably be independently figured out anyhow. It's not like patent holders are any smarter than anyone else when it comes to coming up with ideas, many of these people with unused patents are patent trolls or lawyers and hence are probably much less sophisticated than people in a better position to bring things to product in terms of coming up with good ideas. What seems obvious to a person in industry is much less obvious to a patent troll or a lawyer who only practices law.
Patents have little R&D value, people aren't going to conduct R&D before getting a patent because the products of such R&D could end up infringing on someone else's patent. They get patents before conducting R&D making patents useless at anything other than coming up with ideas that others can just as easily come up with given the current state of technology and knowledge.
Not to mention, people who get patents that don't make it to product probably wouldn't do it if it didn't benefit them and wasting R&D money on a product that you never plan to sell is also not beneficial so these people who are getting patents on these non-existing products probably conducted no R&D and hence those patents have no R&D value.
"The reason that so called patent trolls are able to buy patents is that big companies, literally whole industries stand together and say they are going to use and go ahead and sue."
Having them sue for patents that they never use does nothing to promote the progress. Most patents never make it to product exactly because none of these companies are ever producing what these patents describe. These patents shouldn't exist.
"Also, one does not ave to manufacture in order to ave produced something of value."
Of value to whom, the patent holder? Doesn't mean it's of value to everyone else.
"The proof of this is in a long stream of court rulings where one big company after another has to invest in personal lube."
How is a court ruling proof of anything other than the fact that a court has ruled x. Just because a court may rule that 2 + 2 = 5 doesn't make it so. and I'm not sure exactly what you mean by invest in personal lube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the patent is being infringed then clearly it had value. A patent which is not ever infringed still may have value as a stepping stone to finding a more complete solution and may even catalyze a completely different solution.
When I produced what I thought was an invention I would study patents related to the concept. In the process I would go through large number of patents. Sometimes I would see that the patents missed something related to my concept and that would lead to my expanding the scope of the invention. Sometime I found that there was prior art which limited my original idea to the point it was not worth further pursing my idea. And quite often looking at all those patent gave me insights which led to yet other inventions.
When inventing one goes through a great deal of chaff in order to find a few nuggets of value. In my experience only half a percent of potential inventions were worth my time to take all the way.
In many cases the determination on what was worth my had noting to do with an invention itself and everything to do with how nasty a specific industry is in their dealings with inventors.
Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Factuality aside, how is that a logical argument? Should we not expect better outcomes? How are heart surgery and patent examining comparable? I'll let you count the ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reasonably objective
As in many other things whether one is infringing or not is a matter of opinion. Still, a plaintiff must have a reasonably objective basis for bringing suit, or they risk being sanctioned by the court. Attorneys are loath to file unless they're pretty sure. None of them want to risk the wrath of the court and their license. Just because an infringer thinks they don't infringe doesn't mean they are not.
"anyone who criticizes it must be paid by big companies"
It is a natural conclusion that one may be on the take when their "articles" are always slanted against patents and never present the views of small entity patent holders or inventors. How can one conclude otherwise? It is a reasonably objective conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misuse of patents
I am an IP attorney, and know there is value in IP, but the abuse of the system sickens me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big Corporate Abuse
I agree, big companies abuse the system as a way to abuse inventors and their property rights also sickens me.
It is long past time penalties for willful infringement be made much more severe.
Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Big Corporate Abuse
IP is not real property and it's not a right it's a privilege. Your statement is similar to saying that competitors abuse their ability to compete. It's not an abuse, it's a legitimate use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Big Corporate Abuse
Time for you to go back to school. Or, you could infringe a valid patent an find that you no longer have any real property.
Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Courts are handing infringers their heads.
Patent infringement is not legitimate use, and that is why courts are handing infringers their heads. If it was legitimate use we would not have all the parasites howling about their or the potential for their being held accountable.
Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Courts are handing infringers their heads.
It maybe not a legal use, but the law isn't the ultimate authority over legitimacy.
"and that is why courts are handing infringers their heads."
Or maybe it's just because our legal system is broken.
"If it was legitimate use we would not have all the parasites howling about their or the potential for their being held accountable."
IP is intended to promote the progress, not to prevent those that you deem to be 'parasites' from competing in a market place. It's not about giving patent holders some imagined rightful monopoly over something, such a rightful monopoly does not exist (as the founding fathers note). It's about promoting the progress. Our current system does no such thing.
People aren't parasites just because they compete or independently come up with similar ideas as others. The only parasites are those who don't innovate who sue those who do with bogus patent infringement suits, taking their money in exchange for absolutely nothing of value. There is a word for that, stealing, it's nothing short of legalized theft. It needs justification, it must promote the progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parasites Limitations
Which it does by conferring exclusive use of an invention to inventors who teach via a patent.
"not to prevent those that you deem to be 'parasites' from competing in a market place."
You are flat out wrong.
Your problem is that you have never had an original thought. You are smart enough to understand that you do not have what it takes and not smart enough to understand ethics.
Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Parasites Limitations
You mean like how companies such as Intellectual Ventures do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Parasites Limitations
The only reason IV is able to do this is that whole industries use independent and small business inventions without acquiring rights to do so and then dare inventors to do something about it. They know that most of the time they will get away with this.
Returning to IV it is clear that they are expanding on areas which they are investing in with original research which does teach via patents. While IV may be preying on and taking advantage of an artificially low market and they are bare knuckled business players they still create a market where small entities are not able to do so.
IV is filling a market niche which big companies created with their disreputable conduct. IV, to a small degree, and other companies more so are blazing a trail and creating a liquid market for the most important asset America has, patent protected American ingenuity.
Eventually, big players will stop rationalizing their theft of others inventions, not because they are ethical, because big companies rarely are, but because the liability of massive patent theft will simply become too expensive.
The big issue here is that when transnational corp[orations steal patent property rights from small business they are also stealing jobs from all of us. We cannot allow companies who are responsible for moving so many jobs out of America to also steal the asset which drives new job creation.
Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents are to teach...
I think Ronald is right when he states that patents are there to teach. By getting a patent on an idea, you are showing the world how you figured out to do something. In a few years everyone can then also do it and build upon your idea after your time of exclusivity has expired. If you don't want people getting your idea, and it is a complicated idea and/or process, don't patent that idea, product, whatever.
However, if it is a rather simple thing to reverse engineer, then patent it, so you have the rights for a few years and then be glad that you won the race to get the patent before someone else stumbled upon this idea. However, I really wonder that if it was that simple of idea, should this be something that is patentable?
So two examples make me go back and forth with the whole patent system.
1) My dad is in the rope manufacturing business and has done R&D off and on for 25+ years. He's not a PhD in polymers, he's mostly in charge of the actual equipment. As such, he's come up with a number of processes to make products that no one else has figured out how to make. I remember as a kid 15 years ago getting a tour of his plant. He showed me how he came up with process X that none of his competitors had figured out to make this rope, and that rope was very well received by the market. His company had the corner on that market. I asked him at the time if he had a patent on it since I thought it would be cool to know my dad had a patent. He told me no, he did not. It seemed that his bosses weren't concerned with getting one. So fast forward 15 years to when I was back home this last Xmas. Once again getting the traditional tour of the plant and he once again was showing me process X. Come to find out that when the company had been bought out recently, the new management had decided to patent process X. My dad told me it was a good thing that they had, since now one of their competitors was seemingly copying the process. Now, my question, is it a coincidence that they just now started copying this process after the patent was filed, but had not been able too for 15 years before that? Did the patent help them corner the market or did it just give their competitor the jumpstart needed to make a similar product. But if a patent is there to teach and not just to claim exclusivity, then it was actually serving its intended purpose, just maybe sooner than desired. So is a patent in this situation a good thing or bad?? If you look at it from my dad's company, I'd have to say a bad thing, because now they have shown the competitor how to make this product. But from a progress stand point, it was a good thing since it is now allowing other to take that idea and build upon it.
So now the simple example:
2) My cousin designs boxes. I never knew this was a profession before my cousin started doing it. So he designs a box for dispensing wine. Apparently there is a desire for boxed wine, but not the point of this discussion. So his company submits his design to the potential client to see if they would want to start ordering this box. The wine company does not order the box from them. A few months later my cousins company sees an ad from said wine company, talking about this new box design... and wouldn't you know it looks just like my cousins design. Now, his company had made sure to patent ideas like these for just this reason. So now its to the courts to figure all this out. So in this case it would seem that the patent system is working as it should. However, I have to wonder if a NDA or some other type of binding contract not to take the idea and use it without their permission would have been enough to take the wine company to court with if they had decided to try and cheat my cousins company. Is a patent the only way to go about this?
So, with all that being said, I actually took the time to read the patent in question here. It seems to me to be an idea of how one could email out news to recipients based on their pre-selected preferences. Not a ground breaking idea, IMO. And even if you say that it doesn't have to be groundbreaking to get a patent, I'm not sure it meets the non-obvious criteria. But some could, and probably would, argue that it wasn't obvious at the time. The patent was filed in '99, so this is early google as only a search engine days. Not a whole lot going on with news aggregate stuff yet. Not a whole lot going on with the internet in general. But I still say it's just an idea. Not a product. Not something you invented but something you thought would be cool. I know some will still argue with that too, that ideas can be patented, but when can we have some common sense injected into the process?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patents are to teach...
Regarding patenting sending out e-mails based on pre-selected preferences there is prior art and the patent should be invalidated.
The patent troll process is abusive. It could be fixed without discarding the concept of IP. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
One possible solution: No production, no patent suit. If you don't make and sell the product, you can't sue someone.
Second possible solution: If you sue and your patent does not get upheld, the suing party, and shareholders become jointly liable for five-ten times the cost of defending the suit to the successful defender.
We cannot expect the government patent office to fix the system and actually not allow obvious or prior-art patents because, well, they're the government and they're really not very good at much but dropping bombs from 20,000 feet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
significant person President Riley professionally comments on important issue...
"Your problem is that you have never had an original thought. You are smart enough to understand that you do not have what it takes and not smart enough to understand ethics."
Thank you, President Riley. Your incisive analysis again yields crucial insight. Without your contributions to this discussion and without your efforts to protect invention, discussion would end, invention would end, and we would be truly lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: significant person President Riley professionally comments on important issue...
It would actually serve all of you right if big companies had their way in this. You could spend the rest of your miserable existences as serfs feeding big corporate coffers.
Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Anonymous Coward" Headed For Padded Cell
Think of how devastating it must be to never have an original thought.
Ronald J. Riley,
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Other Affiliations:
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 9 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]