Company Wants New Hampshire Supreme Court To Let It Sue Anyone Who Calls It A Patent Troll
from the oh-really-now? dept
Over the years, there have been a few attempts -- usually by companies that most of us would call patent trolls -- to argue that calling a company a patent troll is defamatory. These arguments rarely get very far, because they completely misunderstand how defamation works. However, a company with some questionable patents around bank ATMs, called ATL, tried a few years back to sue a bunch of its critics over the "patent troll" name. Thankfully, the local court in New Hampshire correctly noted that calling someone a patent troll is protected speech under the First Amendment and is not defamatory.
ATL decided it was going to keep trying. Tim Lee, over at Ars Technica, recently wrote about oral arguments in front of the New Hampshire Supreme Court in this case.
In Thursday's oral arguments at the New Hampshire Supreme Court, ATL attorney Steve Gordon urged the New Hampshire justices to overrule that initial dismissal of the lawsuit.
"The gist or sting of the statements at issue was that my clients were extortionists, shakedown artists, preying on small banks seeking to license patents that were of no value," Gordon said.
Gordon argued that none of this was true. Critics said ATL wasn't selling any products, but Gordon noted that his client did try to commercialize his patents many years ago. Critics said ATL was engaged in a shakedown. "This is not a shakedown," Gordon said.
This seems like an incredibly iffy argument. There have been many, many cases on similar types of claims, and such statements are not defamatory, as it's not possible to prove them directly "true" or "false" since they're very much in the eye of the beholder. The Phantom Touring case is a key one here, where the court ruling noted:
Many of the statements cited in the complaint and appellate brief either constitute obviously protected hyperbole or are not susceptible of being proved true or false. Such, for example, is the language in "The phantom of the 'Phantom' " quoting a critic who described the Hill production as "a rip-off, a fraud, a scandal, a snake-oil job." Not only is this commentary figurative and hyperbolic, but we also can imagine no objective evidence to disprove it. Whether appellant's "Phantom" is "fake" or "phony" is similarly unprovable, since those adjectives admit of numerous interpretations.
I can't see how ATL can get past that bar.
Another standard seen in weak defamation cases is seizing on a small error of terminology. In this case, back in 2012 ATL had key claims in some of its patents invalidated in the federal circuit. That didn't mean the entire patent was invalidated, but invalidating key claims can more or less kill off a patent. In this case, the defendants said that the patents had been invalidated, when it was actually just some key claims. ATL's lawyers argue this is defamatory. It is not.
At one point, Gordon argued that one of the defendants had defamed ATL by claiming its patents had been invalidated. Gordon said that this was false and defamatory because only certain claims of its patents had been invalidated; others remained valid.
But justices seemed skeptical. "Wasn't the gist of the statement correct?" one justice asked.
Indeed, having the gist of a statement being correct is a defense against defamation claims. That's why I find it kind of amusing that up above, ATL's lawyer used "gist" in suggesting that calling ATL a troll was defamatory. If you're the defamation plaintiff, you're generally not supposed to be the one bringing up "the gist."
Of course, from the hearing, it really does sounds like (note to ATL lawyers: this is my opinion) ATL is just trying to cost the defendants as much as possible, as its focus seems to be getting past the Motion to Dismiss stage and into discovery -- which can be the most expensive part of a case. Though, as Lee notes, ATL's reasons for wanting to move the case into discovery seems to be... because they want to get into discovery.
Gordon argued that ATL should have gotten a chance to build its case via discovery before a judge decides whether the case has merit. But when a justice asked what information he'd like to seek during the discovery process, the attorney's answer was a little vague. Gordon said that he'd like to depose defendants, asking questions like "what were the facts that you relied upon when you made a statement of shakedown?"
But it's not clear that these kinds of questions would be all that illuminating. The core of the defendants' case is that terms like "shakedown" are fundamentally matters of opinion. Courts have long held that opinionated terms like "rip-off" and "snake-oil" could not be defamatory. The defendants argue that labeling someone a troll or accusing them of blackmail falls into the same category.
Never read too much into how judges behave during oral arguments, but at least from Tim's reporting, it sounds like they're skeptical here. And they should be. Calling a company a patent troll is not defamatory. Nor is saying a patent was invalidated when it was really key claims. And trying to drive up legal fees by dragging a questionable case into discovery is quite obnoxious and an attempt to bully a company through abusive litigation.
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
Filed Under: 1st amendment, defamation, free speech, new hampshire, patent troll
Companies: atl
Reader Comments
The First Word
“And even were this their intent or reasoning, it still wouldn't do them one bit of good.
If I call someone a scammer, it doesn't matter if they have some highly advanced or unique method of tricking people out of their money compared to the vast majority of people generally referred to as scammers.
If I call someone a loser, it doesn't matter if they came in 2nd place out of 2,000 rather than 50th of 50.
If I call someone cruel, it doesn't matter if they were only harmful words, and no skinning of dalmation puppies involved.
The terms are still subjective and significantly opinionated, no matter which of the two situations results in being called a scammer, a loser, or cruel.
And even if it's not subjective, it doesn't really matter. If I call a local restaurant a "pizza place" because they serve pizzas, it doesn't matter if they're making their dishes with the finest German bratwurst, century-old imported cheese, tomatoes only sauced by the chop of a black-belt guru, and delivering them by butler. If they're offended by being referred to by in the same breath as Little Caesar's, too bad. They're still a place that serves pizza.
If it's defamation, you have to be able to prove without a shadow of a doubt that it was false, that they should have known it was false, and that it hurt you.
Saying "but we're not LIKE other patent trolls!" comes about as close to cutting it as a knife in Chicago does to a pizza in New York.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Trolls?
So failed patent trolls, unable to shake-down small banks with invalid patents, develop a new business plan to shake down their critics with bogus defamation claims. Profit!! Seems legit, I can see that attracting investors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Summary
Patent Troll Company ATL engages in Defamation Trolling via spurious and extortionate defamation suits against parties that called them Patent Trolls. The shakedown attempt on those that called out their shakedown attempts seems unlikely to succeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets hope they keep with the standard game plan...
Sue your critics to try and silence them...
Lose that case poorly...
The Feds start nosing around...
They end up in jail...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent Troll
Company doesn't like being called a Troll
Decides to take it's lawyers and sue to make people stop hurting it's feelings.
I wonder if they will starting sending letters demanding payments for unauthorized use of the troll trademark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zombie "Howard Robinson" back for 2nd after over 4 years!
Techdirt has a real PHENOM of "accounts" that make one bland comment then wait 4-5-6 years to make a second!
This is no innuendo. You can't explain it without astro-turfing.
The dull pieces of late must be astro-turfed to simulate interest, but I have to wonder why use indisputable zombies when so easily exposed? -- Trying to pretend that these LONG gaps are normal? Only at Techdirt! -- Or Zombie Master / Techdirt just don't care that they're obvious? -- Anyhoo, it's wacky and keeps me interested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Zombie "Howard Robinson" back for 2nd after over 4 years
This is no innuendo.
Just in your endo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Zombie "Howard Robinson" back for 2nd after over 4 years
Unlike ATL, I don't get upset being called names, I got a much much thicker skin then they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent Troll
We should not use the offensive term Patent Troll.
Instead use the neutral term PTE.
(PTE = Patent Trolling Entity)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To give ATL a fair shake, I think the issue here is that they don't want their brand of patent trolling associated with the type of patent trolling they don't like, where the patent troll uses an overly broad submarine patent to skim a profit off of companies that have become profitable in a similar arena.
ATL's patent trolling does indeed appear to be of a different nature, where an inventor patented a process, attempted and failed to bring it to market, had parts of that patent invalidated, and then attempted to bring suit against the organizations who failed to purchase their wares while carrying on a business with processes similar to the partially invalidated process patent.
ATL probably feels their suit was more justified and feels insulted to be painted with the same brush as the patent trolls whose only purpose in holding patents was to profit off of related lawsuits.
Of course, in most of those other cases, the patent trolls came into existence because someone failed to bring a product to market and then sold their patent to a bunch of lawyers -- whereas in this case, ATL failed to bring a product to market and then hired a bunch of lawyers to attempt to recoup their losses; I don't really see much of a difference, other than the extra defamation lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem of course, that your post highlights, is that there are different opinions on what it means to be a patent troll. Some say you need to have an overly broad patent, some say you need to not be exploiting the patent, some say you need to have no other business activity, ect.
As such, the defamation lawsuit fails because what constitutes a 'patent troll' is an opinion. There is no legal definition that can establish the label of patent troll as a fact, rather than an opinion.
That is the entire issue on which the entire article is based - that they don't want to be associated with a specific definition of patent troll but it doesn't matter because 'patent troll' is a term of opinion. Your 'fair shake' is the stance ATL is expressed to have in the article above. It literally provides no fairer perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: [patent troll]
The term is fairly well understood. The alternate term, non-practicing entity'', may be more technically informative, butpatent troll'' seems to sum it up pretty well.
From the description in the article, it is clear that the unsuccessful plaintiff is, in fact, a patent troll. It is not producing product using its patents. It is trying to convince people to pay license fees for what appear to be questionable patents. It meets the core requirements to be deemed a NPE, or troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And even were this their intent or reasoning, it still wouldn't do them one bit of good.
If I call someone a scammer, it doesn't matter if they have some highly advanced or unique method of tricking people out of their money compared to the vast majority of people generally referred to as scammers.
If I call someone a loser, it doesn't matter if they came in 2nd place out of 2,000 rather than 50th of 50.
If I call someone cruel, it doesn't matter if they were only harmful words, and no skinning of dalmation puppies involved.
The terms are still subjective and significantly opinionated, no matter which of the two situations results in being called a scammer, a loser, or cruel.
And even if it's not subjective, it doesn't really matter. If I call a local restaurant a "pizza place" because they serve pizzas, it doesn't matter if they're making their dishes with the finest German bratwurst, century-old imported cheese, tomatoes only sauced by the chop of a black-belt guru, and delivering them by butler. If they're offended by being referred to by in the same breath as Little Caesar's, too bad. They're still a place that serves pizza.
If it's defamation, you have to be able to prove without a shadow of a doubt that it was false, that they should have known it was false, and that it hurt you.
Saying "but we're not LIKE other patent trolls!" comes about as close to cutting it as a knife in Chicago does to a pizza in New York.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's defamation if I claimed they did something specific that they didn't do.
If I claimed you're a thief because I felt you did a poor job cutting my hair and I felt you charged me too much that's not defamation.
If I claimed you intentionally stabbed me with the scissors and I incurred $2000 in medical bills when none of that is true that's defamation.
General name calling is generally not defamation unless it clearly implies specific actions that are not true. If I claimed you sued Microsoft for infringing on a patent you don't own and that's not true that's defamation. If I called you a patent troll because you have sued people for patents that's not defamation unless I make specific claims about what you did and those claims are not true and I know that those claims are not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another arrogant BLUE BALLS paying for attention.
For those new to the site, "blue" and "out_of_the_blue" refer to those arrogant commentors who pay for the privilege of putting their deathless wit in Techdirt's unique "First Word" and "Last Word", the highlighting done by hyper-links (hence the name "out of the blue"), usually large and always annoying. You see those only rarely because reviled.
This one is odd too because you'd think someone who like Techdirt so much are willing to pay to be a Blue Balls would make an account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another arrogant Troll
Since "Doug" is a poster with no history he isn't qualified to speak on this - let me clarify his lies.
"Blue" refers to a couple butt-hurt posters, that live in their parents basements, and have "Blue Balls." Mostly just one posting from TOR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another arrogant BLUE BALLS paying for attention.
Sorry that you're offended someone else decided my comment was worthwhile, I guess. I'm not so vain as to push my own comments to a paid podium. I feel they stand well enough on their merits alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We get it, you can’t afford to buy a First or Last Word. Have you tried making a GoFundMe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Too funny. You can't make this shit up.
On this very article where Blue criticizes a commentor because they have a sparse comment history, Blue also attempts to obscure his own long history of commenting under the moniker "out_of_the_blue".
Hypocrisy is thy name, Blue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
Haha. Nobody even referenced you blueboy, yet somehow you feel the need to do some damage control on your reputation by lying about what's going. Something so simple that most people can tell you're lying at first glance?
You need help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: smells like blue balls
Because after defending extorting terminal cancer patients your reputation is somewhere between runny day old dogshit and the pavement it resides upon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"ATL is a patent troll"
Did someone really try to say that "ATL is a patent troll" by using the phrase "ATL is a patent troll"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "ATL is a patent troll"
ATL is a patent troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "ATL is a patent troll"
So they didn't say pay ten trolls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pay ten trolls?
Patently!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hamilton shitting a brick in 3, 2, 1...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suck it up, buttercup!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libel Troll
From the makers of Patent Troll, bring you…
Libel Troll! This summer, coming soon to a courtroom near you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope they win
Strange how the same speakers simultaneously express their right to call anyone anything they want, but then condemn others who are severely punished just for speaking. It’s totally fair and right that Rosanne gets smashed against the rocks for bad taste, as long as you can make up any crazy shit about anybody, spread it worldwide, and remain immune to any rebuke or consequence.
I hope they win, and “Patent Troll” because at least as defamatory as “Gorilla” (or even “guerrilla”: https://www.theroar.com.au/2018/10/11/guerrilla-not-gorilla-warfare-fired-tennis-analyst-who-nearly- died-to-have-his-day-in-court/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: they won't
Roseanne didn't get sued for libel, she got fired for something she said herself.
Same difference as being fired for not showing up to work, versus being arrested for not showing up to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: they won't
So you are OK with punishing Rosanne for her speech. At least you appear to be.
And you are OK with punishing the journalist who dared to use the words “guerilla tactic” (not “gorilla tactic”). Are you OK with the mob getting him fired? Fair enough? Ever worry that you might be next?
Are you OK to generalize those punishments? Is it OK to fire ANYONE anywhere for saying ... saying what exactly? What is allowed and what is not allowed? Using “patent troll” is OK, but what is NOT ok? Hate speech? Patent Troll sounds like “hate speech” to my ears. Who’s ears are the ones to judge who should be fired and who should be promoted?
How about reports of false hate crimes (Smollett)? Should he be banned in the same manner Rosanne was banned? How serious is it up make up a “hate crime” that never happened? In fact, I believe it is much more serious than Rosanne’s comments, certainly less criminality involved, no? Or do you think Rosanne should be put in jail?
Is there anyone here that is worried that THEY might be fired in they say the wrong thing? Is there a “chilling effect” that took place after Rosanne was fired?
These are sincere questions. Any sincere answers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, I got a few, you JAQ-off.
If someone working at a company says something undoubtedly racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic, and that company’s higher-ups want to distance themselves (and the company) from that speech, they have every right to fire that person. We can have honest discussions about such consequences, whether they are appropriate for every instance of that kind of speech (or various others), how future employment may be affected by those consequences, and the nature of apology/forgiveness in relation to such consequences. But as far as the legal right to fire someone over what we colloquially refer to as “hate speech” goes: Yeah, it is okay.
Which is no surprise to us, Hamilton. By the by, how’s your boi Shiva doin’ after getting smacked down so hard by Liz Warren in an election he never had a real chance of winning that he now claims to have invented losing by a landslide?
The person who is in charge of such things at a given business/company/corporation.
Banned from what? Also: Roseanne Barr said a bunch of stupid bullshit, which is not a crime, whereas Jussie Smollett is accused of filing a false police report, which is a crime, so acting as if their two situations and their consequences are the same is a false equivalence.
I thought you said you had sincere questions.
To say otherwise would be ignorant. And yes, there is a discussion to be had about the proper consequences for saying bigoted bullshit and having your boss/society in general catch wind of it. But you seem to want a discussion about whether such consequences (or any consequences at all, really) should even happen.
People are still saying bigoted bullshit in public and on social media, so LOLno.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tell me again what is NOT hateful about calling someone a “patent troll”. Is “patent troll” a term of endearment? Is “patent troll” more hateful or less hateful than “gorilla” or “guerilla”? Should the tennis reporter have been fired, are you OK with that?
Or is it just all bullshit with the intent of fueling hatred and division?
If I call you a gorilla in response to you calling me a patent troll, who is more guilty? Even Steven?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Tell me what is hateful about calling someone a patent troll? Is patent troll not a descriptor of actions? Is this even related to the terms "gorilla" or "guerilla"? Should ATL be allowed to continue their predatory practices?
Should you, as an employer, do nothing if someone makes a public disgrace of themselves in a manner that reflects poorly on your business and may have real consequences?
Or are you just spouting bullshit with the intent of fueling hatred and division?
If I call you a dick in response to you asking stupid question, who is more guilty? You, or your tactics?
I'm Just Asking Questions, bro...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, let's agree that people who say or do the wrong thing should be fired, and banned from making a living. That sounds good and reasonable, right, just as you point out? You have no problem with that, right?
Now let's make a list of those things which can not be said - for example, calling a black person a gorilla. And then include the use of the (perfectly innocent) phrase "guerilla tactic" if it is at all associated with a black person. And then let's include some more phrases, maybe monkey (or "monkey business") or a reference to watermelon or nigger or nigga and maybe a few hundred more words. Then we will make sure that everyone that uses those phrases are fired and banned from making a living.
Why not just make it a federal law, that would be good right. Then you could enforce your ban on free speech nation wide. Why not FORCE business to FIRE people for SPEAKING words on the List? That would be good, right? Then you would be happy and not have to listen to "unsafe" speech, right?
And tell me again why "patent troll" cannot be a phrase on the List that gets you fired and banned. I think it's absolutely hate filled, even you would agree with that. Tell me you don't hate patent trolls. Of course you do. It's obligatory to be part of the modern left to HATE patent trolls. You hate patent trolls, depict them as predatory monsters, and despise them. Admit it.
Then go Fire Yourself. YOU'RE FIRED! (ahh.. that felt good, just like the old days)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure. That's what you wanted.
Have an Article 13 vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because the First Amendment says you can’t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you're a troll, right? You agree with me on that, right? You're just asking questions to get under people's skin, right?
That's all fair and reasonable, right? You agree with me on that, right?
Why not just force people to answer your questions in the way you want them to, right? Why not just make it a federal law? That seems reasonable, right?
It's obligatory to be part of the modern right to support the old bigotry, right? You despise immigrants despite being descended from them, right? You hate anyone who doesn't fit your preferred profile or is too dark, depict them as predatory monsters, and despise them. Admit it.
Then go Fire Yourself. YOU'RE FIRED! (Ahh ... that felt stupid, just like the old days)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Banned from making a living".
what is this i don't even. the stupid, it burns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not hard to figure out.
Hamilton is a scammer activist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Damn, boy, you crapped enough bricks to build a house!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They shouldn't of been fired, but in the US people can be legally fired for ALMOST any reason, or even no reason at all.
But anyway, losing your job =/= being sued in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I bet you think the fashion police can arrest you for plaid
Jhon boy you are so fucking stupid I bet that you really think there’s a “court of public opinion” where Ellen Degeners resides offer a sinister cabel of fabulously dressed trans/gay judges who pass judgement on thought crimes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adapting Libel Law to the Modern World
Don’t you think it is about time that we adapted Libel Law to the Modern World? If you look backwards 20-30 years, the idea that someone could publish information that could be simultaneously consumed by readers worldwide in seconds and by the millions would have been astonishing and terrifying. What has happened is that the technology has gotten ahead of the culture and ahead of the current laws.
How about we adapted a sliding scale of responsibility? For example, something you said in confidence to a small number of people would be at one end of the scale, and screaming something on the Internet where it is bound to get worldwide attention is at the other end of the scale.
Then, the definition of defamation could be adjusted to the degree of intention to distribute the defamatory message. The idea would be that the farther you scream your false message, the more liability you incur. That sounds fair, doesn’t it?
This forum, for example, by being so widely distributed, would be subject to more liability than a locally accessed private corporate server, for example.
And then everyone would have the opportunity to think more carefully about what they say in public. Or face the consequences.
Good idea or bad idea?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Adapting Libel Law to the Modern World
If you're expecting this site to take responsibility...
Then you're in for a disappointment, mate, because according to this site's biggest critics, nobody reads this site. So the amount of responsibility based on your system to be assumed by this site would be... less than zero.
Nice going!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Adapting Libel Law to the Modern World
Bad idea.
Next!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Adapting Libel Law to the Modern World
I suggest talking to your elected representative about your idea. When they are done laughing at you they might be kind enough to direct you to a copy of the first amendment and the relavent case law from the last 30 years v
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: they won't
Smollett was also fired from his TV series - just like Rosanne was.
Nope. Conduct clauses in employment contracts are nothing new - especially in the entertainment business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: they won't
What used to be applied to a few Hollywood movie stars has now become a standard practice even for low level subordinates in a huge media industry. That’s new, and combined with how homogeneous the media industry is, really terrible. If you don’t “toe the party line” with everything you do and say, you can’t work. It feels un-American to me, how about you? It is a stretch to call it an “independent media” with examples like Rosanne (and the tennis writer, and many others).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: they won't
Really that what you’re going with? It “feels” un-American so therefore...
Do you maybe wanna go back and make a second draft of them horse apples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: they won't
You are probably too young to remember the “Red Scare” that Hollywood promoted a few decades ago. Banning people for being associated in any way with Socialism or Communism, firing them from their work, banning them from working at other studios. Remember that? Read about it in history maybe? That was un-American, because people should be free to believe what they like, and express what they like. Now, being socialist is FINE with Hollywood, right? Do you see the about-face that the repressive Hollywood culture has made?
Now, if you are pro-American, wear a MAGA hat, or tweet anything that MIGHT be interpreted by ANYONE as Racist, you’re Fired by Hollywood. That’s what you’re defending, right? Firing people for tweeting, threatening teenage boys with a wood-chipper if they support the American president, or pointing out that Michelle Obama has a striking resemblance to a Gorilla in High Heels and Lipstick. Silencing speakers you don’t like is fine, right? You’re for that, yes, as long as no one can silence you.
What do consider American? Are you American? Do you admire America, or do you Hate America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: they won't
Article 13 is European, but that hasn't stopped you from going down on your knees for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: they won't
Ah, so you're in favor of lynch mobs, right? That's what you're defending right? The big wall of racism? You just hate anyone who's too dark, right?
Round up all the non-whites and put them in a detention center, right? I mean, this is just what's reasonable, right? Remember the Jim Crow laws? Remember segregation? Weren't those days glorious? You agree with that, right? That's just American, right?
Do you admire America, or do you hate America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: they won't
You appetently don’t know the difference between the court of public opinion and the a court of law. So no we aren’t worried because we understand that words can have consequences both inside and outside of the courtroom and there’s a very good reason that we keep them separated. In other words piss off and take your stupid ass strawman with you. And if you should feel that my words have hurt you in some way. Feel free to use words to humiliate/defend yourself further. Or even better take me to court so TD can get another article out of a pissant who got their panties in a wicked bunch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: they won't
You do know that men never get their “panties in a wicked bunch”, and when you write that, you are appealing only gay men or teenage ladies or retards. To the ears of actual adult men, you sound like a pissy little bitch, and your argument fades into the background.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: they won't
I don't know, sounds like you've got your panties in a bunch to me.
Can't prove him wrong so you're lashing out at his choice of euphemisms? Or did you really think that he meant that all men wear women's underwear?
Also, grown females don't wear underwear? This has completely flipped my world on it's head. You mean to say that there is an entire industry out there for grown women's undergarments that has no market in which to sell them? I daresay Victoria's Secret has to be the best company at not selling their product but that can still turn a profit. Also, who knew all those VS models were really gay men and retards? Excuse me while I go re-evaluate my sexual preferences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Panties and the buching thereof
Rut roh. Do you think he’s run away because his undergarments are unacceptably bound or because that was the last best argument his fragile ego could pathetically muster?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Except you bro
You sound really triggered there. Maybe you can find a gender neutral pair of undies to get twisted up. Real adult men don’t act like the crybaby you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: they won't
None of that actually disproves the claim.
So when did you stop wearing panties?
Yes or no?
Answer the question!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't we show these trans companies some basic dignity and respect and address them as they ask to be addressed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can't we just call you an asshole?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
y u so mad, brony?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Must be my English. Shall I rephrase that to what the community has already voted as insightful?
Question: How much literal bodily pain does treating trans-companies with basic decency and respect cause you to feel?
Hate the game, not the player
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libel
Many years ago I read a comment about libel which said:
"If you call someone a horse thief and they sue, but it turns out they are instead a saddle thief, you cannot be held guilty of libel."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Value
The value of a patent is in teaching the public to do something it couldn't have figured out. If other people stumble across a technique by accident, never having received information from anyone who saw the patent, the patent by definition is of negative value to society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Value
That's literally not how this works.
Obviously at least one member of the public figured it out to apply for a patent in the first place. Who are you to say NOBODY else could have figured out? Indeed, history is rife with examples of the same thing being invented or discovered at the same time by different people.
Patents are, by definition, of negative value to society, no matter what. They only benefit the patent holder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Value
Now hold on there, buckaroo. Only sith deal in absolutes.
There are several reasons why patents can be, and often have been, positive for society, and benefit more than merely the patent holder.
Ideally, the patent system encourages invention and advancements. Why spend hours, weeks, or years developing something that your competitors can immediately copy from you? I'm not talking about standing on the shoulders of giants, where they take your product and improve it. I'm talking about iPhonies made with child labor and sold to Wal-Mart; knock-off products that can be made more cheaply, distributed more widely, or marketed more effectively than your hard work, and taking buyers away from you.
It's not just "cheating off of someone else's homework" and giving them an advantage by not spending the resources to invent it. It severely hinders the ability for an inventor to gain any benefits from the time and money that goes into development.
Another reason why patents can be useful is the same as that of trademarks: a buyer can be confident that any device made with patent X is equally reliable (or unreliable), as it comes from the original verified source. When patents expire and generic versions become available, buyers nearly always get significant advantages of cheaper alternatives, but at a risk that these alternatives aren't necessarily manufactured to the same standards.
Were there no patent protection from the get-go, sub-par imitations could easily flood the market and give the entire technology a bad reputation, resulting in fewer people receiving the advantages of the genuine device. Similar to the risk the letdowns of AT&T's fake 5G pose to the development and adoption of real 5G technology.
There are many reasons why the current American patent system can be inefficient, ineffective, stifling, easy to abuse, or difficult to use. [Personally, I'm of the opinion that patents should only grant royalties, not exclusive rights; should only be granted after a working example is created (like trademarks); and should expire if unused (like trademarks).]
But the idea that patents are imperfect is completely different than the idea that patents are always a bad thing for everyone except the patent holder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Value
I stand corrected.
I was looking only at a narrow area of patents, and only within the context of the current state of the US patent system. In that I mean, you get a patent for something and no one else can use what you've patented unless you bring it to market or license it out.
I see now how narrow my view was on that. Thank you for the explanation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Value
You... you... stand corrected? What?
Without mentioning a political direction, corporate affiliation, or common law? No ranting of any kind?
You even -- gasp -- explain your opinion and reasoning in a more specific context, without a single strawman, instead of repeating the same thing but louder?
I apologize, but I have no choice but to cast a shadow upon your name, sir or madam. Though you indeed be Anonymous, you are certainly no Coward.
Back on topic: I do agree with much of your narrower stance. There are many ways to gain similar and greater advantages over the American patent system without the negatives it contains. As mentioned, I'm a firm believer in a fair use system where you can use the patent as much as you like as long as you pay a fair percentage to the patent holder for a set amount of time.
Our current system is too easily abused by the holders of patents, both in creating monopolies and in allowing troll cases. I am personally affected by several of these; there is no equal alternative to an EpiPen due to the patented injection system, so I am forced to choose between spending $300 every few months, buying much cheaper products with injection systems that are known to fail fairly often, buying raw ephinephrine and some way of keeping it on ice, or just hoping I never experience an allergic reaction bad enough to send me into anaphylactic shock.
On a less personally-affected note, 3D printing. How many people realize that it was on the market before iPhones (2007), iPods (2001), smartphones (1999), Google (1998), Wi-Fi (1997), DVDs (1995), Amazon (1994), the PlayStation (1994), HTML (1993), SMS texting (1992), Linux (1991), Microsoft Windows 3.0 (1990), and the Nintendo Game Boy (1989)?
No joke, there were 3D printers on the market back when high-speed internet of a whopping 2 kb/s could fill a $200, 40 MB hard drive all the way up in just over four hours. The patent for the most common form of 3D printing (by extruding hot plastic) was registered in 1988 to one company, Stratasys. The patent expired in 2009, which is the primary reason why the cheapest 3D printer of any kind in 2008 was $10,000, while $500 3D printers were available in 2010.
Were it not for Stratsys forbidding anyone else from using this technology, and limiting their use of it to massive industrial machines only fit for factory use, we would likely have seen the many improvements and uses of 3D printing a full decade in advance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Value
My thanks. Sadly the resident trolls have given all of us ACs an undeservedly bad name. Not all of us are so dogmatic.
I do try to keep an open mind and accept that I may be wrong on occasion, and own up to it when I am. As in this case.
I also was unaware of the history of 3D printers. That is fascinating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Value
They are not equivalent, because it is quite easy to make a patented product with inferior materials and/or processes, giving very different reliabilities. Patent only covers function, and not implementation quality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
digital marketing
Raletta is a globally integrated digital marketing agency based in Mumbai - a full service digital marketing agency offering innovative, creative digital marketing and Content solutions.
https://raletta.in/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“Re: Re: Re: Another arrogant Troll
Since "Doug" is a poster with no history he isn't qualified to speak on this - let me clarify his lies.
"Blue" refers to a couple butt-hurt posters, that live in their parents basements, and have "Blue Balls." Mostly just one posting from TOR.