We recently wrote about textbook publisher, Flat World Knowledge, changing its business model and getting rid of its free access to textbooks, something it had initially promised it would never do. The final line of our post noted that this hopefully opened up the opportunity for other providers to step in and figure out new ways to be disruptive in the textbook field. We were then contacted by Thomas Madsen, who runs Bookboon, which offers up free ebooks, including textbooks, business books and travel guides -- and then monetizes them with advertising. He notes that, not only is business going well, but they will continue to make sure that the books remain free for students. Obviously, people get a little squeamish about advertising as it relates to education, but Bookboon deals with that by focusing on a specific kind of advertising: job advertising, which students would obviously find quite useful rather than annoying (and they make sure that there isn't too much advertising). And, together, it works as a business model:

That our model is sustainable and that students and professors like our product is best illustrated by the fact that our traffic has grown on average 100% per year since 2009. This year 40,000,000 ebooks will be downloaded from bookboon.com.

This growth we have financed by retained earnings only. We have not taken in outside investments, which otherwise has been the standard when someone wants to offer free education material, and still most of these have had to give up on their original vision to survive. Because we are profitable and independent, we will be able to continue to grow our business in the coming years and provide free textbooks, to the benefit of all students.

Some tried to take the story about Flat World Knowledge and argue that it proved that "free" didn't work. But, as we noted, all it proved was that how Flat World Knowledge implemented it as a part of a business model did not work for them. Others, using "free" in other ways as part of a complete business model, are figuring out how to make it work, and Bookboon appears to be a good example of that in action.

Space exploration is starting a new era. With more and more commercial ventures taking over low earth orbit missions, government space programs can focus on more long-term missions to increasingly distant places in our solar system. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be many collaborative international efforts for missions to other planets, so it's looking like a new nationalistic space race is emerging. Here are just a few space projects aimed beyond our planet.

• NASA is about to announce ambitious plans for manned space outposts on the moon and at a Lagrangian point. There are only a handful of Earth-moon Lagrangian points, so if NASA gets to the better ones first, the US will occupy some of the best space real estate. [url]
• China is planning to land a probe on the moon sometime in 2013. China ultimately wants to have a manned mission to the moon, but it hasn't set a timeframe for that goal. [url]
• If you want to keep score, the Soviets have landed spacecraft on two other planets (Venus and Mars), while the US has only landed equipment on Mars. But if we're counting quality, not quantity, then the US has gathered far more information on Mars than any other space program. [url]
• NASA's Morpheus lander is designed to touch down on other planets, moons and even asteroids. Morpheus runs on methane and oxygen so that it could potentially re-fuel on extra-terrestrial bodies, and it could handle a variety of payloads such as robots, laboratories and even astronauts. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Many people seem to assume that any internet-based poll is, inherently, unreliable as compared to other polling methods. However, Nate Silver has taken a look at how a variety of polls fared in the 2012 Presidential election and found that many of the internet polls did quite well, outperforming other methods:

...some of the most accurate firms were those that conducted their polls online.

The final poll conducted by Google Consumer Surveys had Mr. Obama ahead in the national popular vote by 2.3 percentage points – very close to his actual margin, which was 2.6 percentage points based on ballots counted through Saturday morning.

Ipsos, which conducted online polls for Reuters, came close to the actual results in most places that it surveyed, as did the Canadian online polling firm Angus Reid. Another online polling firm, YouGov, got reasonably good results.

This isn't to say (of course) that online polling is always accurate. It still very much depends on methodology (some online polls didn't do very well at all). But, it should put to rest the idea that online polling is inherently flawed or inaccurate.

Despite the fact that his last attempt to shove a questionable Cybersecurity Act through Congress failed miserably, rumors are spreading that Harry Reid (perhaps at the urging of the White House) is going to try to use the lame duck session of Congress to try to get the flawed Cybersecurity Act through Congress once again. Given that those against the bill haven't seen any changes, it's hard to see a different result happening this time around, but you never know how last minute horse trading will fall out.

Reid is aiming to bring the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 to the floor at the end of next week after the Senate votes on Sen. Jon Tester's (D-Mont.) sportsmen's bill, according to Senate aides.

It appears that Reid's strategy is to try to make Republicans who voted against the bill "soft" on terrorism if they don't support the bill:

Last month Reid vowed to bring the cybersecurity bill to the floor in the lame-duck session, saying that Republicans "will have one more chance to back their words with action, and work with us to pass a bill."

This, of course, is silly. "Action" for the sake of action is dumb. Especially when it leads to passing a questionable bill that will have a negative impact on civil liberties and is targeting a problem that still has not been adequately laid out in any detail.

Apple may be happy it won the first round of its patent fight against Samsung in the US (it's not faring quite so well elsewhere around the globe), but these things have consequences. Besides being a competitor, Samsung is also a key Apple supplier... and it appears that Samsung is now using that to its advantage, jacking up the price on a mobile processor supplied to Apple by 20%. The report notes that Apple pushed back initially, but after realizing it couldn't find a reasonable replacement, agreed to the new prices.

According to the report, Apple buys all APs used for production of iPhone and iPad from Samsung Electronics with the volume estimated to be 130 million units last year and more than 200 million units this year.

Samsung Electronics has a long-term contract to supply APs to Apple until 2014, the report added.

So even if Samsung has to pay Apple for patent infringement, perhaps it'll be financed by the higher prices on processors Samsung sells Apple.

Maybe, next time, instead of suing each other, they could just focus on building products people like and letting the market sort the rest out.

Today at 1pm PT (4pm ET), we'll be doing a live streaming interview with Cole Stryker, the author of Hacking the Future: Privacy, Identity, and Anonymity on the Web. We've run a couple of excerpts from the book -- one about why anonymity matters, that many of you agreed with, and another about the dark web, which many of you did not agree with. Given that, it should be a fun discussion. If all goes according to plan (never a sure thing when you deal with technology), right around 1pm, we should have a video pop up beneath this text, so check back... If you happen to be reading this after, the full video will be immediately available for viewing.

It's interesting (or maybe just kind of sad) that various government agencies see possible terrorists everywhere but rarely, if ever, catch one. Despite the large number of personnel being thrown at the problem (along with lots of money), actual terrorists seem to be in limited supply.

But these agencies haven't let their lack of success temper their vision of a nation under constant imminent attack. Public Intelligence recently posted a Powerpoint presentation from the NYC fire department (FDNY) discussing the unique safety issues mobile food trucks present. Along with some actual concerns (many food trucks use propane and/or gasoline-powered generators to cook; some *gasp* aren't properly licensed food vendors), the presenter decided to toss in some DHS speculation on yet another way terrorists might be killing us in the near future.

That's right. Instead of serving up a quick hot meal, these food trucks will be serving up death, and lots of it! Under the heading "Terrorist Implications," the FDNY lists the exact reasons we should be concerned, most of which begin with the word "high." While any terrorist organization worth its twisted ideology would do well to nail down as much of this list as possible, so would any vendor who wished to stay in business. The question is: how do you differentiate between the two? One answer might be to sort through the data collected by all the food truck terrorism incidents up to this point. (American's fusion centers would like to remind you that zero incidents only means we're due, rather than indicating a terrorist-free trend.)

But there's more! The next slide continues to lay out the "Terrorism Implications," this time reminding first responders that food trucks have large quantities of deadly liquids (propane, gasoline) and are "easily concealed" (which I assume refers to the potential explosives, rather than the truck itself... but you can never be TOO sure). Also, food bombers will usually be in the proximity of "crowds" (gasp!) and "sidewalks" (wha...?). Dammit, now the terrorists have gone too far! It's one thing to blow up our crowds. It's quite another to ruthlessly attack our infrastructure, the very thing that keeps our precious crowds from milling about on the lawn and/or street!

But (dear lord) there's even more! According to the DHS, food carts make "excellent surveillance platforms" because of all the "high" stuff they can park next to for long periods of time. (Has anyone considered knocking on the door and having a quick look around, especially during business hours?) And I'm pretty sure they're not allowed to just park wherever they want for indefinite periods of time, at least not in New York City. There are 8 million laws in the Naked City, none of which are accommodating to the small businessman/woman "stealing" customers away from established restaurants paying exorbitant amounts per square foot every month.

But beyond that, why go through the expense of constructing a food truck when you can just rent a U-Haul, fill it full of explosives and ram it into the nearest high-rise/government building? Unless the DHS figures these terrorists are in it for the long haul, suckering people in with weeks or months of delicious ethnic food before parking across the nearest heavily-trafficked sidewalk and blowing everything up in an explosion of propane and proprietary blends of herbs and spices. Also, does it not occur to them that if you want to keep your terrorist activities hidden, it's probably not the smartest thing to set yourself up as a vehicle that people line up to look inside?

The DHS' unfocused "terrorvision" continues to see a threat in every situation and the department seems to be busying itself crafting a response to every conceivable "threat." The problem with this "method" is that it turns any slight variation of "everyday activity" into something suspicious. The number of "terrorist implications" grows exponentially while the number of solutions remains the same. This Powerpoint is another example of good, old-fashioned fear mongering, utilizing public servants to spread the message.

At no point does this presentation offer anything resembling preemptive action or deterrents. All it does is paint a picture of food trucks as potential threats before concluding with, of all things, common sense safety tips aimed at dealing with food truck fires. The final slide paints the picture in the clearest terms, letting the viewer know exactly whose agenda is being pushed:

Prepared by Lt. Timothy Carroll
FDNY Center for Terrorism and Disaster Preparedness

The priorities are all screwed up. Terrorism is the first concern. Everything else is secondary. Considering this is an FDNY presentation, you'd think that "Disaster Preparedness" would be the priority. After all, they are the first response. But instead that honor goes to the vague menace of terrorism, a constant battle with no winners and, for the most part, no combatants. Every day without a terrorist act is a "win" that perpetuates the "need" for more counter-terrorist "efforts."

All that being said, the easiest way to tell that this "Center for Terrorism and Disaster Preparedness" is all bluster and FUD is to take a look at its logo. Yep: MF EAGLE.

I wonder how copyright maximalist musicians feel about this particular story. Techdirt reader glassneedles alerts us to an offline (!?!) news article in the publication Private Eye, about how the UK's Newspaper Licensing Agency (NLA) has declared that musicians who quote positive reviews from newspapers need to pay £1,250 per year (which would allow them to quote up to 50 reviews). Seriously. Apparently, the NLA went around to various music agents and managers a while ago, and they (quite reasonably) ignored the threats. That just made the NLA mad.

... the phoney war has turned into a real one, with the NLA chasing agents, threatening legal action and demanding not just license payments for future quotes but also retrospective payments for past ones.

The amounts are crazily excessive for the modest, shoestring operations that most classical music management and PR companies tend to be, with £7,000-£8,000 a typical demand.

For folks who help market a number of musicians, the NLA claims are apparently adding up to being fairly serious.

The most outrageous example... concerns a small PR company called ElevenTenths, which is effectively one woman, Claire Willis, working form a spare bedroom.... Poor Ms. Willis was collared by the NLA a few months ago, required to fill in forms about her clients and activities, and then received a bill for £23,500.

Willis complained and apparently the NLA "backed down" and offered a deal for "only" £1,588.45. In the past, we had written about the NLA winning a lawsuit against news aggregators, so perhaps it's now turned to those who quote its reviews as a new, highly questionable, revenue stream.

I wonder if folks in the UK are regretting the decision, in the Hargreaves report, that the UK doesn't need an explicit fair use rule.

Many years ago, one of the absolute worst customer experiences I ever had concerned a Toshiba laptop that never worked properly -- which was followed by ridiculous and rude service. Eventually, using the famous Consumerist Executive Email Carpet Bomb process, I was able to get things sorted out (and, despite them asking me to sign an NDA, when I sent it back crossed out the exec called me and said it was fine and that I was allowed to talk about the situation). Since then, however, I've stayed away from Toshiba laptops entirely. But having had that experience, somehow it doesn't surprise me that, among the major laptop makers, Toshiba would be the one using copyright law to try to hide its service repair manuals (story found via Slashdot).

The situation involves an Australian site called Tim's Laptop Service Manuals, which provides exactly what it says it does. Well, until Toshiba's clueless lawyers got involved. Toshiba gave Tim a list of excuses for why he needed to take their service manuals down -- most of which made little sense. At the end of the list was basically "we hold the copyright and thus you need to take them down." Legally, they're probably right. But, this is just one of those cases where it's stupid to apply copyright law. It's not as though Toshiba needed copyright as the incentive to produce these manuals. No, the only reason to assert copyright here is to try to limit repairs to authorized dealers, which limits the usefulness of their products to the public. In a sane world, this would be a case of copyright misuse. But, when it comes to copyright, we don't live in a sane world.

The other excuses Toshiba gave are pretty silly and seem to revolve around the idea that ordinary Toshiba customers are complete morons who should never try to repair their own computer because it might blow up in their face or something. Tim's response is a good one, noting that none of the other major laptop makers seem to have this problem. So, either Toshiba makes crazy-dangerous laptops... or, they're just trying to protect dealer/repair shop revenue. It's likely the latter.

My place of employment puts a massive emphasis on health and safety in the workplace, a policy I am 100% in support of. Safety is an incredibly important issue, and I applaud Toshiba for taking it into consideration, but I think they are a little misguided. I have personally never been injured or visibly endangered by working on any kind of computer system, much less a consumer notebook computer. I have also never heard of anybody else being injured by working on one. While I do understand the drive behind any concern for safety, the reality is that there appears to be no risk to the well-being of myself or any of my readers by providing repair manuals free to download, and so I do not understand Toshiba’s cause for concern here.

It is worth noting that Dell, HP and Lenovo provide service manuals for all of their laptop computers for download, free of charge or registration or membership of any kind, on their various support websites, which would indicate that none of these companies share Toshiba’s concern in this regard. I would not seriously take this to mean that Toshiba laptops are inherently more dangerous to service than laptops of other brands, thus causing them to discourage unqualified persons from doing so, but drawing on my own knowledge and experience I cannot see what risk they are attempting to mitigate here.

In the end, it seems like this is the kind of thing some lawyer thought was a good idea... "because copyright." You get this with copyright maximalists sometimes, where they think that because a copyright exists, you must exclude people -- even if it makes little economic sense. While I'm already not interested in buying a Toshiba computer, it would seem that this little stunt should scare many others away from purchasing their laptops.

IBM's Chief Patent Counsel, Manny Schecter, has one of the most ridiculous defenses of the patent system you'll ever see over at Wired, entitled With All Due Respect: The Patent System's Not Broken. Having debated the patent system for years, I've noticed a pattern among patent system defenders who are big time patent lawyers. Their argument tends to amount to: see this wonderful thing? It exists because we have patents. Period. The fact that whatever it is they're pointing to probably has nothing to do with patents will never be acknowledged. Schecter's argument is a perfect example of this.

Why would a company spend billions of dollars to build a microprocessor-manufacturing plant employing thousands of skilled workers in the U.S., if it could only protect its technology by obtaining patents in other countries?

I love idiotic rhetorical speculative questions like this that assume it's impossible to answer in any way other than the one the questioner wants... especially when the actual evidence tells a completely different story. It turns out that we have examples of countries with weak or no patent systems -- and they did invest tons in manufacturing plants, employing thousands of skilled workers. As covered in Eric Schiff's research decades ago, both the Netherlands and Switzerland had extremely weak or non-existent patent systems at the time they industrialized -- and both built up industries that involved huge capital expenditure, without the ability to protect the patents at home. Similarly, research by David Levine and Michele Boldrin highlighted how the Italian pharmaceutical industry developed to be quite impressive at a time when pharmaceuticals could not be patented in that country.

The reason for this is not difficult to assess if you're not a patent lawyer. It's that companies don't sell "patents," they sell products. And you can sell products whether or not they're patented. If you build something people want, you can figure out a way to sell it -- even if someone copies you. In fact, what plenty of other research has shown is that (again, contrary to what many lawyers believe) copying market leaders is often a hell of a lot more difficult than people believe. And, of course, even if you have a direct copy, it doesn't mean you can really compete. The first mover advantage is important, but so is knowing how to market and sell products, and copiers often don't do a good job on that front. So, yes, there are plenty of reasons companies would spend a lot of money without patents. And we know that already because the evidence says so.

Why would a venture capital firm fund a social-networking service provider if the company could not obtain patents on its innovative software backbone, preventing others from easily copying it?

Uh, again, because they're not selling the patents, but the service. And plenty of smart VCs fund social networking companies without patents. Let's take a look at one of the most popular social networking sites out there today: Tumblr. The company has zero patents. Zero. And it raised money. From whom? From one of the most respected venture capitalists around: Fred Wilson, who has spoken out directly about how much harm patents do to innovation, and why it makes no sense to invest in a company because of their patents, as opposed to their actual product or service.

So we're now two for two on completely ignorant "rhetorical" questions from Schecter, showing that the true answers to his questions disprove his point. And that's just in the first paragraph. Let's jump forward a bit.

But here’s the thing: Patent disputes like this are a natural characteristic of a vigorously competitive industry.

And they’re nothing new: Similar skirmishes have historically occurred in areas as diverse as sewing machines, winged flight, agriculture, and telegraph technology. Each marked the emergence of incredible technological advances, and each generated similar outcries about the patent system.

So because we've made this mistake before, it's okay to make it again and again? What kind of logic is that? Seriously.

We are actually witnessing fewer patent suits per patent issued today than the historical average, according to economic historian Zorina Kahn. The rate of patent litigation was twice what it is today compared to some decades in the mid-19th century.

This is a completely moronic and meaningless measure. Why? Because the number of patents being granted today far, far, far exceeds the number granted in the past. The percentage of patents that are litigated over doesn't matter. We're talking about the impact of the lawsuits. The fact that the patent office grants a ridiculous number of patents today that never are used in litigation has no impact on that whatsoever. This is what's known as throwing out bullshit statistics when the actual data goes against you.

Economists also tell us that 75 percent of a company’s value is attributable to its intellectual property (IP) -- and that IP-intensive industries contribute $5 trillion per year to the U.S. economy. These industries account for about 35 percent of gross domestic product and 40 million jobs, including 28 percent of the jobs in the United States.

Where to start? First off, which economists? Second, having your value attributed to your "intellectual property" (loosely defined) is not the same thing as saying that it's because of intellectual property laws. This is a common and ridiculous mistake that many make -- assuming that because the things currently covered by IP laws are important, the laws themselves must be important. Ideas, content, innovation etc. all exist absent IP laws. This is something that patent lawyers seem to conveniently forget or ignore. Next, the $5 trillion number and the 40 million jobs claim -- well, that's equally bogus, as we've discussed before. It's based on the ridiculous and obviously faulty belief that these jobs and "contribution" to the economy are due to "IP laws" and not other economic activity such as people actually selling stuff. And those jobs? Yeah, anyone who claims that has lost all credibility, because, remember, it's actually mostly about trademark, and that means that 2.5 million of those jobs are actually people working at grocery stores. Sorry, dude, you don't get to claim the checkout bagger as a reason why we need stronger patent laws. But that's exactly what he does.

Six of the 10 companies globally with the highest software revenues are U.S. companies, including the top three. In other words: The success of the U.S. software industry correlates with its use of software patents to protect its innovations. If patent litigation caused by the U.S. patent system stifled innovation, U.S. software companies would not be the most successful in the world.

Well, let's start with the basic point that correlation does not equal causation. In fact, let's dig deeper and point out that in nearly every case, the patents came after the success. That is, these companies have used patents to restrict competition, not as a way to get big. Of course, Boldrin and Levine's research has shown that to be the case historically as well. Strong IP laws and enforcement tends to trail innovation, rather than the other way around. I don't know which "list" Schecter is using here, but we'll go with the software top 100 -- and it confirms that theory. Top of the list? Microsoft. The same Microsoft whose founder once said:

If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.

Not exactly the ringing endorsement Schecter believes it is. Yes, lots of big companies have patents, but that's because they need to have patents these days or they get sued by others who have patents. Schecter knows this because he lives this daily (sometimes in helping IBM sue other companies for innovating). Need we remind Schecter of the famous story of IBM showing up at Sun with a patent lawsuit, and after being told that Sun didn't infringe on any of the patents, telling Sun:

"OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"

That's not innovation. That's extortion. And Schecter is defending it.

Ever since U.S. courts made it clear that copyright is unavailable to protect their ideas, developers have sought to protect inventions embodied in their software via patents. Denying patent protection for software will cause these developers to look for other ways to protect their IP investment — resulting in code that is less open, less accessible, and less interoperable.

Uh... copyright has never been about protecting "ideas," only expression, so I'm not sure what he's getting at here. Furthermore, part of the big problem with software patents today is how they're broadly claiming way too much. If I understand his argument here, it's that if we fix that, and stop them from using monopolies too broadly, they'll just try to lock up their software. Except we already know that fails in the marketplace in the long term. Over the long run, customers demand more open, accessible and interoperable solutions. Why do you think IBM bet so strongly on Linux backed up with a giant service business? Because it knew that there was money in providing services around open, accessible and interoperable systems. If a company is stupid enough to go in the other direction, it will fail in the marketplace. No problem there.

In the end, none of the arguments he makes even come close to making sense. At best, he argues some sort of bizarre correlation to make his point, but most of the time he's just pointing elsewhere and pretending it has something to do with patents. We could just as easily argue that patents have caused population growth in the US. I mean, look, the population has grown... and we have patents! And it would be just as meaningless as every single argument he makes.

For years, we've pointed out that some in the music industry get so obsessed with "stopping piracy" that they miss the fact that their main job should be to increase revenue. They make the huge mistake of assuming that the two things are the same -- and that "stopping piracy" automatically leads to "increased revenue." Yet, almost every time that issue is explored empirically (over time), it doesn't seem to hold up. The latest example was sent in by Techdirt reader edinjapan, and it concerns the new draconian anti-piracy laws that recently went into effect there. If you believed the basic theory behind this law, this would mean that greater enforcement by police would mean less piracy... and a massive influx in revenue.

Except, the reality is that consumers are spending less on music than they were before the bill became law. The article actually posits that the government has made some people so fearful of being arrested that they won't do any downloading from legitimate sources any more -- just in case it's tainted. So even if they can cut out piracy (doubtful) there's little evidence to suggest much increase in commerce as a result.

Ars Technica has the story on yet another patent troll -- though this one seems a bit special. TQP Development -- a typical patent troll in so many ways -- has apparently gone on something of a rampage over the last four years (and increased in the last year) suing hundreds of companies. The list is impressive. Its most recent lawsuit is against Intel and Wind River, but it's sued pretty much everyone you can think of. Apple, Google, Twitter and eBay? All sued. Target, Hertz and Mattel? Yup. The list goes on and on... and the company is able to get a bunch of companies to settle just to get rid of the lawsuit. Apparently not a single lawsuit has actually gone to trial.

The patent in question, 5,412,730 is quite simple, with just two claims:

1. A method for transmitting data comprising a sequence of blocks in encrypted form over a communication link from a transmitter to a receiver comprising, in combination, the steps of:

providing a seed value to both said transmitter and receiver,

generating a first sequence of pseudo-random key values based on said seed value at said transmitter, each new key value in said sequence being produced at a time dependent upon a predetermined characteristic of the data being transmitted over said link,

encrypting the data sent over said link at said transmitter in accordance with said first sequence,

generating a second sequence of pseudo-random key values based on said seed value at said receiver, each new key value in said sequence being produced at a time dependent upon said predetermined characteristic of said data transmitted over said link such that said first and second sequences are identical to one another a new one of said key values in said first and said second sequences being produced each time a predetermined number of said blocks are transmitted over said link, and

decrypting the data sent over said link at said receiver in accordance with said second sequence.

2. The method as set forth in claim 1 further including the step of altering said predetermined number of blocks each time said new key value in said first and said second sequences is produced.

Got it?

Of course, the patent actually expired back in May (17 years after it was granted), though the company is still suing, since there's a "look back" period of six years, and the company apparently intends to use as much of the next six years as it can getting people to pay up for encrypting their web traffic. Can anyone explain how this is a reasonable system?

What Ars leaves out of the story is that TQP is part of a much larger operation. TQP is one of Erich Spangenberg's companies -- he has hundreds of different patent trolling operations, and even had to pay a huge fine a few years back for shuffling around patents between companies and suing DaimlerChrysler twice over the same patent, even though the original settlement promised he wouldn't sue them over the same patent again. He's also the guy who got smacked down after sending "anonymous" threat letters in which he would not name the client or the patents -- but demanded the company he reached out to first sign a gag order to even find out what the patent was.

Spangenberg has also proudly stated that his mantra is "sue first, ask questions later," which might explain the hundreds of cases filed by TQP.

Andy Greenberg at Forbes actually got Spangenberg on the phone where he tried to defend TQP's actions:

“When the government grants you the right to a patent, they grant you the right to exclude others from using it,” Spangenberg says simply when I reach by phone him in his Dallas office. He makes no apology for the fact that TQP doesn’t use the encryption patent itself, or even have a website. “If you buy a hundred-foot lot in the middle of Manhattan, you’re not required to develop it…Companies have the right to protect their IP dollars.”

Greenberg also points out that many of TQP's lawsuits refer to sites that encrypt with the RC4 algorithm -- and RC4 predates the patent by two years. Apparently, despite other claims against various websites that use RC4, Spangenberg changes his story:

But when I point out to Spangenberg that RC4 was invented by MIT cryptographer Ron Rivest in 1987, two years before the filing date of TQP’s patent, he counters that defendants’ infringement actually has nothing to do with RC4. Instead he claims the infringement lies solely in the use of the SSL or TLS “handshake” that establishes a secure connection between a web browser and a web server, a technology invented in 1994 and used by virtually every secure web page.

Greenberg notes that basically the entire internet uses SSL or TLS for security these days, and Spangenberg, ridiculously, claims it's because of how great the "invention" in the patent is.

There's a lot more in Greenberg's interview, including Spangenberg trying to claim that the patent is valid, in part because famed security expert Bruce Schneier was "advising" him when they got the patent. But Schneier tells Greenberg a very different story:

Schneier says he worked with Michael Jones on a technology related to secure payment systems in the 1990s. But since Jones’ work was acquired by TQP and used for lawsuits, he’s actually consulted to a half-dozen defendants in Spangenberg’s cases, many of whom settled for undisclosed sums rather than risk an expensive trial.

Schneier describes TQP as a “really bad patent troll” and the intellectual property it’s using to cudgel defendants as a “crappy patent” that ought to be invalidated by prior art–evidence of previous invention of the same technology.

But, of course, none of that matters when there are hundreds of companies to shake down...

While the Apple patent disputes with Samsung and Motorola seem to get most of the publicity, Apple's first patent lawsuit against an Android phonemaker was against HTC, who quickly sued back. However, over the weekend, the two companies announced a settlement in which they're cross-licensing all of their patents to each other for a period of ten years. While the full details are secret, all of the indications are that HTC is paying Apple, but not a huge amount. HTC has said that it won't have "an adverse material impact" on its financials. While HTC remains a smaller player than Samsung, one hopes that this is actually a sign that Tim Cook has realized that Steve Jobs' infatuation with killing Android in court is not a productive strategy. This, of course, won't end many of the other patent fights around smartphones, but hopefully it shows that Apple has become less ridiculously "religious" about fighting in court, rather than focusing on the marketplace.