Interview With A Patent Troll... Which Skips The Key Questions

from the leaving-out-some-of-the-details dept

Aaron Martin-Colby points us to Good Magazine's softball interview with Erich Spangenberg, considered by many to be one of the more successful "patent trolls" or "non-practicing entities" out there. The interview is a huge disappointment, though, as the interviewer basically only gives a superficial hearing to the reasons why Spangenberg is causing tremendous harm, and instead tries to paint him as a "Robin Hood" figure, taking money from super wealthy companies (she leaves out the "distributing it to the poor" part, because, you know, that doesn't actually happen). She ignores the economic arguments (which are long and quite detailed) of how much harm such activities do to the economy by shifting resources from actually making stuff to just transferring money around to lawyers.

But worst of all, the article presents Spangenberg as always being right and always having big companies settle (or that he wins his cases). You would think that any profile on Spangenberg would include little facts like that he was caught shuffling patents around in order to sue companies multiple times over the same patent -- despite a settlement promising not to. Doing so eventually cost Spangenberg $4 million. Robin Hood? Or how about his attempts to stretch what highly questionable patents cover? For example, patent 5,493,490, which covers a system for making electronic proposals to buy cars (which, yes, you would think seems obvious enough, but what do you know?), which Spangenberg is asserting against dozens of companies who don't sell cars, but do sell other stuff online.

The problem isn't that there are people who sue without ever making stuff (even though that's what some claim). The problem is that the patents are ridiculous and never should have been granted. Giving someone a total monopoly on an invention (and, despite claims to the contrary, in reality, patents do cover "ideas" not just inventions) should only be granted in extreme circumstances. Yet, the Patent Office hands them out like lollipops to children at times. But, unfortunately, this interview doesn't get into any of that. The reporter seems swept off her feet by Spangenberg bragging about his wealth and who he knows, and doesn't bother to ask any of the important questions.

Filed Under: erich spangenberg, patent troll, patents

Judge Bans The Term 'Patent Troll' -- And The History Of Patent Sharking...

from the not-in-my-courtroom dept

As I've mentioned in the past, I'm no fan of the phrase "patent trolls," though it sometimes does serve a useful purpose. It does seem unnecessarily biasing -- and without a clear definition many people jump to the use of the phrase when it's really not appropriate. Thus, it should come as little surprise to hear that a judge (in East Texas, of course) has told a defendant he may not refer to the plaintiff suing him as a "patent troll." This actually is quite reasonable for a variety of reasons. Obviously, the term has extremely negative connotations without a clear definition, opening it up to serious misuse. Also, there isn't anything illegal about being a patent troll anyway (yet). It is bad for innovation and it's bad for the patent system -- but the reason such actions are so popular is that, for the most part, they are perfectly (if ridiculously) legal. With that in mind, focusing on name calling clearly isn't the best way to get out of the lawsuit. Still, it is rather amusing that things would reach such a level that this would even merit a judge ruling on the term.

Speaking of what to call folks who buy up dormant patents and then use them to sue actual practitioners, a friend just sent me a fascinating research paper looking at an eerie parallel to patent fights in the 19th century, when so-called "patent sharks" (seriously) bought up a bunch of dormant patents on farm equipment and then went around suing farmers who were unknowingly infringing. Yes, the similarities are striking. In fact, the parallels go even further. Right before this happened, there had been some changes in what the patent office considered patentable (just as business models and software have only recently been considered patentable). Also, other industries outside the farm equipment industry fought back to prevent any real patent reform from being enacted -- just as others outside the tech industry are now fighting against today's patent reform. Based on all of this, the paper recommends that history teaches us the way to get rid of patent trolls is the same way that the government got rid of patent sharks: get rid of the patents they prey on -- meaning (in this case) getting rid of software and business model patents.

Filed Under: east texas, patent troll