Bitmovin Takes A Scorched Earth Approach To Patent Troll, Who Limps Away Quickly
from the the-best-defense dept
A few years back, e-commerce company Newegg decided to take something of a scorched earth approach to all of the various patent trolls that came after it: it would never settle with a patent troll. While many trolls rely on the fact that it’s cheaper to settle than to fight in court (even if you win), Newegg did the longer term calculation, and recognized that even if it cost more to defeat trolls in court, by being very public with its stance in fighting it would likely scare off trolls from continuing to sue the company. It took a few years, but the strategy mostly worked. Trolls have mostly learned to steer clear of Newegg.
Last year, Cloudflare decided to up the ante a bit on such a strategy. After a patent troll went after it, Cloudflare didn’t just promise to fight back, it promised to effectively burn the patent troll into the ground. It set up a bounty looking for prior art on every patent held by that patent troll (Blackbird Technologies), and also filed ethics complaints against the lawyers who ran the company, arguing that they were pretending not to practice law when they clearly were. That strategy has resulted in an easy win over Blackbird in court while various Blackbird patents are being challenged.
It appears that approach is inspiring other companies as well. Streaming infrastructure company Bitmovin’s General Counsel Ken Carter (who, notably, used to work at Cloudflare) put up a blog post describing just how it dealt with a recent patent troll. After first pointing out that patents can be important, and noting that the company itself holds some patents, the post reminds everyone that it’s possible to abuse the patent system.
Patent trolls tend to be at the bottom of the IP food chain. If the patents they held were really valuable, the patents would have already wound up in the hands of someone who could make the invention. These trolls behave like bullies, threatening companies actually servicing customers, hoping to pick up some quick cash. The troll knows about and takes advantage of the fact that it is cheaper for those companies to pay it off than to endure the cost of litigating the case. By contrast, patent holders who are making products for customers tend to be more rational. Sure, sometimes the likes of Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Samsung get one another involved in multi-year, multi-million dollar lawsuits, but for the most part these companies don?t extort one another. It?s a better use of their time to make products than to sue.
Bitmovin didn’t just hit back at this patent troll: it promised a similar scorched earth approach to the one that Cloudflare took against Blackbird:
We threatened to counter sue the troll, win the case on the merits, and then seek recovery of our fees and costs from the troll and its lawyers. Further, we pledged that Bitmovin would, as a public service, reinvest any recovery in invalidating all of the troll?s other patents. Through our initial investigation, we found the person behind the troll who had acquired some 15 patents originally held by a European technology company. This person then placed these patents in at least two other LLCs. In turn, those LLCs were asserting these patents in no fewer than 13 other lawsuits against defendants such as Sony, Microsoft, Cisco, Polycom, Blue Jeans Networks, and Motorola. Bitmovin pledged to use our recovery to assist those 13 companies and 6 other companies defending against the current patent in finding prior art and filing Inter partes Reviews at the US PTO?s Patent Trial and Appeal Board to invalidate all of those patents.
How did that work out? Pretty well:
Without another word, the troll dismissed its lawsuit against us.
And the company hopes that other trolls will take notice:
Trolls beware. Bitmovin will continue to stand for innovation and a nuanced, balanced approach to intellectual property. We will stand up against intellectual property abuse and for our customers, our industry, and the Internet at large.
Of course, in that post, Bitmovin declined to name the troll. Though, it’s not that hard to figure it out. The case was filed by Hertl media, whose only existence online is for the various patent troll lawsuits it filed at the end of June. Within 3 days, Hertl Media sued not just Bitmovin, but also Amazon, Cox Communications, Netflix, Comcast, Longtail Ad Solutions, and Telestream. One hopes that others on that list take a similar approach to Bitmovin, and they too might see the following neat results. With minimal effort in court (just a standard request for extra time to file a response), Hertl just walked away and the case was closed:
Filed Under: defense, patent trolls, patents
Companies: bitmovin, cloudflare, hertl media, newegg
Comments on “Bitmovin Takes A Scorched Earth Approach To Patent Troll, Who Limps Away Quickly”
Few things bring me such pleasure as hearing about overly litigious IP trolls metaphorically getting their asses carved off and served back to them on a silver platter.
Ooh, that curb-stomping Bitmovin gave has gotta Hertl.
Update the law
The law needs to be updated for patent trolls. Similar to anti-SLAPP laws, trolls need to be made to pay when their IP is bullshit.
Re: Update the law
Or they could incentivize the USPTO for quality rather than quantity, which is the opposite of what they have done.
Re: Re: Update the law
Except the patent office is suffering from the classic bureaucratic management measurement problem, which is find something to measure, which appears meaningful, and maximise that number. The number of patents granted can be measured, the quality and value of them cannot, so maximise patents issued becomes how performance of the patent office is measured.
Re: Re: Re: Update the law
Of course quality can be measured. Unfortunately it, in this instance, would come after the fact. How many patents are overturned via Inter partes Reviews at the US PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Maybe someone with more knowledge of the process could point out some other possible quality controls.
There is also the possibility to allow patent analysts to use the Internet to search for prior art. I heard (I think here on Techdirt) that they are not allowed to. This was in furtherance of the approve more patents movement. They could also make those Inter partes Reviews easier to intitiate. It does not matter how much one spends on applying for the patent, if the patent is bogus.
But, in this case it appears that at least some of the patents came from Europe, and the article does not make clear whether they were also approved here. That, might obviate the above. That, however, does not mean that the US patent approval system doesn’t need cleaning up, and that quality can and should be tracked.
Re: Re: Re:2 Update the law
They could also use the number of overturned patents as a measure for removing patent examiners from their jobs. Quality would skyrocket.
Re: Re: Re:2 Update the law
Re: Re: Re: Update the law
My sister-in-law’s husband is studying law and recently did an internship at the USPTO. Knowing about the discussion here regarding “patent examiners measured by patents issued,” I asked him if that was really the case. He said that they aren’t measured by approvals; they are measured by actions. So, any action performed on a patent application – approvals, rejections, communications to the applicant, etc. – are what’s measured.
Obviously this is not “citation needed” quality, but I was mildly pleased to hear that rubber-stamping isn’t how they get raises.
Re: Re: Re:2 Update the law
Here are a few citations anyway:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171228/17052738897/shocked-shocked-to-learn-patent-office-is-structurally-designed-to-approve-shit-patents.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160803/15513435149/government-accountability-office-study-confirms-patent-office-encouraged-examiners-to-approve-crappy-patents.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150430/14481230841/why-does-us-patent-office-keep-approving-clearly-ridiculous-patents.shtml
There are likely more at:
https://www.techdirt.com/search.php?q=approval&search=Search&edition=&tid=Patents&aid=&searchin=stories
Re: Re: Re: Update the law
It would be FAR easier to have a fixed maximum number of patents each year, and make the contest about filing the most valuable patent in terms of the potential benefit to future users.
Also, all of the applications should become public knowledge, with those that didn’t meet the threshold should being public domain as they were already obvious enough.
Re: Update the law
Not just for patent trolls. When you lose in court as the prosecution you should be responsible for whatever the penalty would have been for the defendant. So if you sue in civil court for $x and lose then you need to pay the defendant $x. We can start with civil and eventually criminal cases too 😀
Re: Re: Update the law
So if a corporation pollutes your water, and you think you have a case for your $150,000 of medical bills but you lose, you’re on the hook for 150K to be paid to the megacorp? Sounds like a way to further privilege the rich at the expense of the poor.
Too bad they can just close the complaint
It would be nice if the defendant had a say in whether the case was dismissed. Force them into court.
Re: Too bad they can just close the complaint
Defendents have prevented trolls from dismissing cases in the past, then filed to recover costs.
out_of_the_blue’s not going to like this, is he? Or whatever dumbfuck throwaway pseudonym he’s using.
You can often temporarily stop a bully by saying you will fight back. But usually the bully only stops temporarily. They will try again with someone else.
The only way to really get the message through to a bully is to actually fight back. THAT will get the message through that if they try to bully again, they will likely end up worse than when they started.
Hopefully the victims of the bullies will actually follow through with their attempts to invalidate the troll’s patents. Any other trolls will look at the outcomes and think twice before they start with oneone else.
Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
Have any of the writers with opinions on patents ever consider how your suggestions can also result in a corrupt system, skewed against inventors? A large corporate entity that follows your advice can simply starve small individual patent owners from their legitimate rights. There are two sides to the coin you advocate – you punish the tiny minority of the abusers of the system (which you all focus on) but you have punished small business and individual inventors EVEN MORE! You are literally advocating throwing the baby (the best inventive minds in the world who absolutely should profit from their inventions) along with the dirty bath water (the abusers of the system).
Or is that you whole point? You are all actually paid by large corporations to protect their interests (corporatists), isn’t that close to the real truth? Your one sided consideration of the issue should be an embarrassment to anyone who thinks it through. Who pays you guys, anyway?
I understand that it is totally legal for Techdirt to lie about and overtly disguise anything it wants, it is, after all, a corporation who may excersize the ultimate authority within the walls of it’s own forum. Do any of you ever consider the harm you are doing to real people (inventors), or do you only march to the drum of large corporate interests?
Why not take off your hoods and your black masks and show yourselves for who you are – paid corporate shills advocating a corporatist agenda at the expense of the whole country that needs invention and inventors more than ever.
Re: Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
Ah, right. This magical list of “thousands of inventors” “hurt” by Techdirt. Which you were asked to show since last year, Hamilton, while you were proudly trumpeting Shiva’s campaign against the site. And never showed. And have yet to do so.
What a joke.
Re: Re: Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
You fail to comprehend my point. By advocating for “no settlements”, as so clearly called out in the article and the comments, you are advocating for more expensive litigation. For large corporations, this is not a burden at all, it is a blip in their legal budget. For legitimate small inventors, it forces them to find third party funding, and then cases will only go forward if the damages are enormous, because of the same “no settlements” philosophy. You have disenfranchised the entire class of small inventors in favor of large corporations, and falsely put the blame on abusers on the system.
That is an economic factual result of the position you advocate. Inventors are moving their venue to Europe, where laws are more favorable. The US will suffer on a grand scale as the corporate interests you promote stifle the creative spirit and financial incentives of the best minds in the world. It is happening already, I have seen it.
You are on the wrong side of this argument, financially and historically, you have been morally and politically corrupted by large corporate interests. Your corruption is as plain as your avoidance of the issue and your deceit regarding your sponsors.
Re: Re: Re:
Why should companies either big, small, or somewhere in-between give in to an extortion scheme?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You are characterizing the whole of civil litigation. It is upside down and backwards to argue in favor of increasing litigation costs. Low cost resolution of disputes is a compelling public interest.
Re: Re: Re:3
In an ideal world, yes. But this is not an ideal world. This is a world where some schmuck with a few patents in his back pocket thinks he can file patent infringement lawsuits and weasel his way into quick settlements because the companies either cannot afford or do not want the headache.
I can think of no reason why Bitmovin should have given in to the extortion attempt. If you can provide one, I would love to hear it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Hamilton’s claim also predicates on the assumption that the troll will honor the settlement. There is very little reason for a troll to not subsequently request for more money until the victim has been bled dry of all resources.
It’s why the RIAA and Malibu Media love to get their cases thrown out “without prejudice”, because it means they can continue to harass their victims at a future date with no consequence.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Low cost resolution of disputes is a compelling public interest in both the ideal world and the real world. High cost resolution of disputes favors the established and well financed at the expense of the new entrants to the market. It stifles the introduction of new technologies from small inventors, which is the ENTIRE POINT of the patent system.
The entire “patent troll” narrative is an invention of those who would rip up and destroy America. It exchanges the foreground of the most successful and free country n the world, due in no small part to the patent and copyright system as a whole, and the background of a tiny set of abusers, which can never be fully eradicated except in the most totalitarian of environments.
Metaphoricaly, it is an attempt to sever a societal limb because of mosquito bites. Yes, with your limb gone you will be bitten no more. Neither will you walk or tie your shoe.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
You know what is not the point of the patent system? People like the troll discussed in the article using their patents to extort money from companies of any size.
…motherfucking what. What proof do you have that Bitmovin, Cloudflare, and Newegg want to “destroy America”? How would their “burn them to the ground” stance on patent trolls achieve that alleged “goal”? Given how Bitmovin got a troll to back down by threatening to invalidate patents that the troll could use to extort money from the same “small inventors” you claim would be hurt by Bitmovin‘s actions in this case, how does that outcome hurt anyone but the troll?
The abusers seem pretty willing to eradicate themselves by backing down when threatened with the loss of the patents they use for their extortion schemes. If they get decked in the nose enough times by companies who are unwilling to put up with this bullshit, they will eventually learn their lesson. Even if new trolls will take their place, the “scorched earth” approach will make sure those trolls do not get nearly as far as their predecessors.
Nobody is saying “kill the patent system altogether”. (Well, not at the moment.) We are saying “abuse of the system is inexcusable”. You have excused abuse of the system as necessary to keep that system going as-is. For that, you will be mocked and scorned until you realize how ignorant that stance makes you look.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
(Well, not at the moment)
Tell the truth, Stephen. You believe that the patent system has no value, and the world does not need invention, or to incentivize inventors.
You are part of the disenfranchised few that choose not to participate as a normal citizen. Which is fine, I could care less. Be happy in your angry minority.
Until you advocate destroying the base mechanisms by which America has created wealth for centuries.
Which you do, right? Tell the truth. You have no use for the patent system at all. Right?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Jesus Hamilton you are pathetic. You just love to assign motive and thought to your opponent. So fair play, now it’s your turn.
You are a failed inventor who seeks to curry favour with the very people who would stomp the boot on the back of your neck without a second thought. You’re a first generation “American” who holds some bizarre Ranydian distopia as your ideal, despite it being literally impossible to achieve in reality. You have a deep imagined history spread it through several generation that prove you’re a “Real Murican” despite the fact that your back is as wet as anyone else who didn’t walk across the Bearing Sea. You’re single, divorced, racist, sexist, fascist, and last but not least misogynist. Probably an anti-Semite as well because that’s the free bingo space for cunts like you.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Is Hamilton actually Angry Dude in disguise?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“Tell the truth, Stephen.”
Shocking thought – maybe he is, but the truth doesn’t fit the convenient strawman you’re attacking.
“Until you advocate destroying the base mechanisms by which America has created wealth for centuries. “
Like when Hollywood was created by people deliberately moving as far away from Edison as possible to avoid patent lawsuits? I’m pretty sure there’s more cases of simultaneous invention than there are of people being specifically motivated by patents anyway.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
The corruption of Hollywood is well established. I take no notice of an unhappy species of population abounding in Hollywood who, during the calm of regular government, are sunk below the level of men; but who, in the tempestuous scenes of civil violence, may emerge into the human character, and give a superiority of strength to any party with which they may associate themselves.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
So, you admit that a massive American industry was based not on patents, but on specifically avoiding them?
We’re not talking about morality here, it’s your claim that patents are what America’s wealth was based upon.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
The movie and audio industries are rife with patents, ranging from the error correction codes on audio portions of films (one of my favorites – Berlekamp) to the unique digital storage systems specially purposed to reliably capture digital streams. Ever heard of Dolby? It gives me great pleasure to point out that the “massive” American industry that you name (small in comparison to many others) creates and defends patents and other intellectual property (copyright and trade mark) more than most.
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.
We will never be split apart, socialist foreigner.
Re: Re: Re:11
The film industry as we know it today began when independent filmmakers moved west to avoid patent lawsuits by Thomas Edison. No matter how it feels about IP today, the industry’s origins lie with a group of filmmakers trying to avoid IP enforcement. You gonna go jack off to that?
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
Thomas Jefferson essentially committed IP theft by secreting some rough rice grains out of Italy (a crime punishable by death) to America to try to aid America’s rice-growing industry.
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
” It gives me great pleasure to point out that the “massive” American industry that you name (small in comparison to many others) creates and defends patents and other intellectual property”
NOW they do, yes. That’s not how they started. If they had honoured patents from the get go, they would not be what they are today.
“a people descended from the same ancestors”
Really? Hmm….
“speaking the same language”
Lol, try telling people in border states about that (and yes, some of those Spanish speakers are native born American citizens).
“very similar in their manners and customs”
I’ve been to enough parts of the US to know that’s really not true.
“This country and this people seem to have been made for each other”
At which point in the states development did this become apparent? When the original country was formed, or when Hawaii became a state in 1959? Were you not made for each before that, else why did it take so long to get all 50 of you to join up? What happens if Puerto Rico gains statehood? If it’s so perfect, why do secessionist groups exist?
“We will never be split apart, socialist foreigner”
The fact that you apparently think those words are insults tell me all I need to know about the size of your intellect. Also, did you know that some of those major film studios you’re scrambling to defend are not American owned and/or dependent on foreign investment – or even run by foreigners?
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
The union as a whole has been comprimised this same foreign influence and foreign investment that you mention. Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first. The SAFETY of the people doubtless has relation to a great variety of circumstances and considerations, and consequently affords great latitude to those who wish to define it precisely and comprehensively.
At present I mean only to consider it as it respects security for the preservation of peace and tranquillity, as well as against dangers from FOREIGN ARMS AND INFLUENCE, as from dangers of the LIKE KIND arising from domestic causes. As the former of these comes first in order, it is proper it should be the first discussed.
Foreigner Socialists like you are a threat to SAFETY.
Naw, not really, you’re just fun to mock.
Publius
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
“The union as a whole has been comprimised this same foreign influence and foreign investment that you mention”
Well, which is it? Are you a united people, or are you a compromised society? You can’t be both. You also can’t claim exceptionalism while also admitting that you’ve been freely using foreign investment to achieve things.
“Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first.”
Hmmm… Benjamin Franklin seems to believe that other things are a little more important.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”
Who to believe… the ranting anonymous fool, or one of the founders of the country he’s trying to talk about?
“Naw, not really, you’re just fun to mock.”
I’m sure you’re having fun, but I love your rambling nonsense, though so keep it up!
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
Historical fact quiz – who is Publius?
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
A Roman whose name check is meaningless in a discussion about patents. Well, that was what it was about until you started random word salads.
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
Ok, I see, a hint is not going to help:
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-71
“Random word salads”. That’s funny.
Re: Re: Re:17 Re:
“Ok, I see, a hint is not going to help”
Instead of giving one word hints as to what you’re trying to blather on about, why not just say it? But, your attempt at further misdirection is noted.
““Random word salads”. That’s funny.”
Also apt.
Re: Re: Re:18 Re:
Honestly, did you not recognize the language of our nation’s founders? Could you not understand the context of the revolutionary war reference? Have you never read the Federalist Papers? Did you go to high school? Did you take civics?
Re: Re: Re:19 Re:
Bro.
If you have a point, make it. This is discussion 101. When referencing something to make your point, elaborate on what that point is. Otherwise, all you are doing is setting up for a puerile superiority ploy, such as this post, when the person you are talking to can’t figure out what you point was, even if they knew what you were referencing.
You know why they can’t figure out what your point was?
You never made it.
Try again. This time, explain yourself. Expecting others to make your point for you is a lazy, slovenly path.
Re: Re: Re:19 Re:
“Honestly, did you not recognize the language of our nation’s founders?”
Honestly, I just skim over your ramblings for any interesting nuggets to poke at. It’s hardly surprising that you just tried copying and pasting something rather than make your own argument, though. You’ve gone so far off the actual subject of debate that I’m not bothering to take any of it in. I come on to Techdirt to have intelligent conversations and argue with entertaining idiots – and you’re not providing any fodder for intelligent conversation.
“Did you go to high school? Did you take civics?”
Not in the US, no. Strange how you’d forget that so soon after attacking me for not being American.
We were too busy learning about the centuries of history before anyone discovered the land you stole, and the civilisations from whom you borrowed languages and culture, to get into the minutae of a former colony’s writings. We learned about the things your founders based their ideas upon, not obsessing over their words.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
_" It gives me great pleasure to point out that the “massive” American industry that you name (small in comparison to many others) creates and defends patents and other intellectual property"
NOW they do, yes. That’s not how they started. If they had honoured patents from the get go, they would not be what they are today._
I like how he’s one of the few trolls who, for once, actually don’t claim that Hollywood and entertainment is the biggest thing in the US.
To hear how out_of_the_blue, antidirt and MyNameHere scream about it, you’d think that the planet would have another 2008 financial crisis if a song is streamed on YouTube.
Re: Re: Re: Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
you are advocating for more expensive litigation
Settlements are meaningless from a legal perspective because the case never enters a courtroom. If a patent troll turns out to be wrong, there is very little recourse for previous victims to get their money back because as far as the legal system goes, the erroneous transaction never existed.
For legitimate small inventors, it forces them to find third party funding
And? Say the settlement bankrupts the small inventor too – how is that scenario better?
and then cases will only go forward if the damages are enormous
Have you seen a single case where the patent troll who demands a settlement claims the damage allegedly done to them is anything less than enormous?
You have disenfranchised the entire class of small inventors in favor of large corporations
Because the current system where whoever has the most money controls the courts is obviously different from what you propose?
and falsely put the blame on abusers on the system
Right, so people who abuse the system shouldn’t be blamed. Do you even think before you type the garbage you spew?
Inventors are moving their venue to Europe
No shit? This is what happens when you believe people who abuse the system shouldn’t be blamed or punished.
You are on the wrong side of this argument, financially and historically
So we’re "financially" on the wrong side… meaning the less financially supported side? Yet we’re supposed to be funded by giant corporate interests? And if we’re stifling inventors wouldn’t that mean they have less money? So which is it?
Still waiting on that list, Hamilton.
Re: Re: Re:2 Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
Your logic is too convoluted for me to follow. Do you have a point you can make succinctly? My point is that there is a compelling public interest to have a low cost system to settle disputes, including patent disputes. Arguing to take entrenched and uncompromising positions favors the well financed and disadvantages the small inventor, which is the one we are trying to incentivize.
Re: Re: Re:3 Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
The current settlement system is not a low cost way to settle disputes, and is entirely skewed against the small inventor. You know, the ones that the troll farms attempt to extort by claiming the patents or actual products of others infringe on their overly-broad patents never used to produce an actual thing.
How is it that you imagine the aggressor is always in the right, and somehow represents “small inventors”.
Re: Re: Re:4 Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
I do not imagine that the aggressor is always right, or (as is the case here) always wrong and is an “evil patent troll.” I fully admit there are in fact patent abusers, and also socialist fanatics that are paid to promote faulty ideas such as advocating entrenched warfare instead of speedy and fair minded resolution of legitimate disputes.
Simple question – who pays Techdirt to keep its doors open and why? Does anyone know? Do you believe the source of funds behind the ideas promoted here have any bearing on the legitimacy of those ideas? Do financial incentives deserve any scrutiny?
I’m guessing not.
Re: Re: Re:5
How the blue-flaming hell do you figure that a company saying they will not settle with patent trolls is a “socialist” or “faulty” idea? For what reason should any company settle with a troll (the “speedy” resolution) if that company can fight the troll—and possibly win—so that troll cannot further abuse the system?
Your question is irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
How do you differentiate between a legitimate claim and a troll claim? With no clear distinction, you are advocating the senseless expense of unending litigation.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Has the patent holder ever released a product based on their patent? Is the patent holder the same person/organization that received the patent? Is the patent itself an “[x] but on the Internet” patent?
If the answer to the first two questions is “no” and the answer to the third is “yes”, chances are exceptionally high that the patent holder is a troll looking for a quick settlement.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Well, for your first point, how would you deal with stolen IP that was taken to market by a competitor before the original inventor had a chance to finish product development or testing? Should the patent be invalidated by theft?
Should original inventors be allowed to sell their patents? Your second point seems to preclude this.
Your third point is just silly.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Well, for your first point, how would you deal with stolen IP that was taken to market by a competitor before the original inventor had a chance to finish product development or testing
Sue them in court and let the law decide if the inventor has a case? Laws against theft haven’t magically disappeared just because you think they have.
Should original inventors be allowed to sell their patents?
Sure. But what you’re doing is looking at each question in isolation. If a company buys somebody else’s patent, doesn’t produce the product the patent describes, and makes its money from harassing smaller companies for money under questionable claims of patent infringement – that’s patent trolling.
Your third point is just silly
Except that hundreds of patents exist, solely based on taking analog things putting them online. And lawsuits have happened based on those frivolous patents. e.g. Personal Audio LLC.
You fail, Hamilton.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
“Your third point is just silly.”
Sadly, no. Many of the patent troll lawsuits have involved exactly that thing. You’d know that if you spent as much time reading the actual articles here as you do arguing with people in the comments.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“How do you differentiate between a legitimate claim and a troll claim?”
Since the basic definition of the term is to describe an organisation that hoards patents in order to sue other companies rather than create new product, it’s pretty clear.
There’s a very simple question to be asked – can the company show any products in development, or preferably released, based on the patent in question, or are they just a holding company that got hold of some patents that happen to have some resemblance to another company’s product? It might not be a perfect binary distinction, but at least asking that question would make the trolls have to work for their free meney.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
I would agree with you it is not a perfect distinction. Inventors should be free to sell their patents, precluding that right is a huge erosion of economic opportunity.
With so effectual a weapon in their hands as the proclemation of another as a “troll”, a combination of a few such men, in a few of the most considerable States or in combination with foreign powers, where the temptation will always be the strongest, might accomplish the destruction of patent rights, by seizing the opportunity of some casual dissatisfaction among the people (and which perhaps they may themselves have excited), to this long standing and undeniably successful incentive to invent.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Inventors should be free to sell their patents, precluding that right is a huge erosion of economic opportunity
For the last time, nobody is saying you can’t do that. You can sell your patent to another company who manufactures the product or process your patent describes.
If the company fails to produce anything marketable, but instead chooses to exclusively litigate against targets with the intention of demanding settlement money, that’s what many would consider a patent troll.
With so effectual a weapon in their hands as the proclemation of another as a “troll”
Effective proclamation, my ass. If the case is taken to court – which should be the case, if the accused refuses to settle, as threatened by the patent holder – the judge will evaluate the case and both sides based on merit. In the same way that holding a patent does not automatically make you right, calling somebody else a "patent troll" is not the automatic legal "I WIN" you seem to be so terrified of.
You IP chucklenuts are so predictably hilarious. You claim that because someone rips a CD for backup, we don’t deserve fair use. But when somebody abuses patent law to harass people who can’t afford to defend themselves in court, your feathers get ruffled when a judge says that yes, usage of the term "patent troll" is perfectly acceptable.
Get bent, Hamilton.
Re: Re: Re:5 Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
I fully admit there are in fact patent abusers
…No, you don’t. You literally said "falsely put the blame on abusers on the system". (Protip: This is what happens when people can still click on your comments to read them. If your comments were censored I could not have verified that quote.)
But let’s re-examine your preferred system where the plaintiff demands for a small claim.
What do you think is going to happen when a small inventor claims a large corporation has infringed on his patent, and the large corporation chooses not to pay? Will the small inventor then spend his very limited funds on an expensive lawsuit against a heavily funded opponent, or be forced to go pound sand?
How is that different from the doomsday scenario you’re painting?
Re: Re: Re:6 Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
My point is that it is in the interests of society to incentivize original inventors, as proven by centuries of history across the world. I would advocate for moving towards a lower cost system with simpler resolution rather than a “fight the evil troll to the death, and then kill his family” approach. Vehemence is not a substitute for justice. Who will balance the unfair power relationship between large corporations and individual inventors? We really want to incentivize the best and the brightest, really we do. Not just large corporations with huge legal budgets. Those are the “evildoers” more times than not.
Re: Re: Re:7 Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
My point is that it is in the interests of society to incentivize original inventors, as proven by centuries of history across the world
That point was never in dispute. Nobody has said that inventors do not deserve compensation for what they did. Hammering this point in an attempt to paint everyone who disagrees with you as amoral does nothing to support your point.
fight the evil troll to the death, and then kill his family
Which hasn’t happened. But thanks for playing.
Who will balance the unfair power relationship between large corporations and individual inventors
Again, how does the existing system protect individual inventors? If an individual inventor tries to take a large corporation to task because the corporation infringed on his patent, how does the system protect him when the corporation chooses not to pay up?
Re: Re: Re:8 Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
I am not advocating for the existing system, especially as it has morphed and changed under the leadership of Obama and the left, who IMHO did their best to destroy America, including crippling the patent system by making it outrageously expensive and complex in recent years.
Would you agree that the fundamental argument of the “trolls” is that it is cheaper to settle than fight? Let’s make it cheaper to fight than settle. That’s my point. I am advocating for less legalese, less Markman hearings, less patent review board hearings, less of everything. Get the basic issue in front of a jury and let people use their common sense. Forego the legal gymnastics and replace them with seated jury. Do it in a few months. Streamline the system, that’s my argument. Let the public discipline the large corporations, and let inventors reap the rewards of their inventions.
Re: Re: Re:8 Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
“Further, we pledged that Bitmovin would, as a public service, reinvest any recovery in invalidating all of the troll’s other patents. “
That is, fight the evil troll to the death, and then kill his (patent) family.
Re: Re: Re:9 Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
I am not advocating for the existing system
You believe people who abuse the existing system should not be blamed. You believe the status quo of abuse is as things should be. This is why disproving your rubbish is as easy as sneezing.
less patent review board hearings
Not that I’d expect you to understand, but less stringent patent review is precisely why we’re in the mess we’re in now. It’s why Personal Audio LLC sued several smaller podcasting media companies into oblivion because some knucklehead thought mailing cassette tapes constituted as "prior art" for episodic release of media. Anonymous Anonymous Coward has already pointed out above that the current lack of actual proper review incentivizes the shittier patents you claim to be against.
That is, fight the evil troll to the death, and then kill his (patent) family.
Didn’t you just say you wanted corporations to be punished? I don’t know about you, but I sure as hell don’t know anyone who has a patent for a family member. I’m pretty sure it’s supposed be spelled "parent".
Re: Re: Re:5 Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
You got some citations bro? No? Just unsubstantiated allegations designed to cast doubt on TD legitimacy? Who’s paying you? You said you didn’t comment for free. So fairs fair. Let’s see some financials brah.
Re: Re: Re:3 Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
That admission right there explains the entirety of your presence here.
Re: Re: Re: Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
The “no settlements” stance is not a stance of not settling over valid patents and patent infringement, but not to settle with patent trolls. If a “legitimate small inventor” were to sue, I’d be right there rooting them on to defend their patent against a larger corporation. But that is not what is happening here. Terrible patents being grabbed by non-practicing entities and being used for law-suits/extortion makes the doer a patent troll, no matter if they are a “small inventor” or a host of lawyers with a swimming pool full of cash.
BTW, I’m a software engineer who has a couple of patents in my portfolio. I understand a good deal about what can go right and what can go wrong with patents. But sticking up for a system that emboldens trolls because you think changing it will stifle legitimate small inventors is ludicrous and needs some citations before I can take your rambling on it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
In your system of reference, how exactly do you delineate between a legitimate small inventor and a patent troll. In my experience, and especially on this forum, those terms are used absolutely interchangeably. How exactly do you measure the evil in a man’s heart?
Every government system invented is open to some level of abuse, except those that are completely totalitarian, which are comprised of the worst kinds of abuse.
There are many “narratives” of left focused on destroying America, ranging from “No Borders No Walls No USA At All” to those anti-patent and anti-copyright concepts espoused in this very forum. What is consistent between them is blind condemnation of the perceived “evil” without any consideration of the alternative system where evil would not exist.
What is promoted here is that legitimate rights (of small inventors) would be eradicated alongside the response to the “evil doers” (patent trolls). And the truth is that large corporations are the ones footing the bills to promote these shallow and ill-informed ideas.
Not a good trade-off. Short-sighted and self-defeating. Corporatism is not an end in itself that the public wants to support.
Re: Re: Re:3 Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
_those terms are used absolutely interchangeably. _
Now i know you are just completely and fractally dishonest.
Re: Re: Re:4 Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
Ok, you seem like a fair minded guy – show me a Techdirt article about a legitimate patent holder who enforced his rights with Techdirt’s blessing. I fully admit I have not read every article, maybe you can point out one and I can consider it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
You paint with a rather wide brush that misses detail and creates more false narratives than truth.
I’ve been reading on TD for quite a few years now and have never seen anyone from TD itself advocating anti-patent and anti-copyright. That is to say, they are not saying abolish it altogether, but to fix it from the monstrosity of patenting the obvious and copyrights that lock up content for more than the lives of multiple generations.
You seem to be pro locking up every implementation, writing, sound, and picture under the guise of “champion of the little guy”, but your ideas do more to help the Corporations keep their power and quash those who would be innovative and inventive. So who is the corporatist here???
Re: Re: Re:4 Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
I would be the fellow attempting to defend the original inventor.
Re: Re: Re:5
Given how the patent troll mentioned in this article only bought a set of patents instead of being the inventor/company that originally applied for those patents (“we found the person behind the troll who had acquired some 15 patents originally held by a European technology company”), why are you defending that troll’s abuse of the system as a good thing?
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
My only defense is of the original inventor. If you think that through, you might consider that original inventors need a market for their products.
Re: Re: Re:7
Then why does your “defense” sound like a blatant attempt to excuse away abuse of the system as “pro-American”?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
I do not excuse abuse from any side. Abuse should be met with swift and certain justice, not more abuse.
Re: Re: Re:9
That is exactly what happened in this case: Bitmovin looked into the suing party, found that they were patent trolls, and threatened them with enough consequences for the extortion attempt that the troll backed off. Bitmovin spent minimal amounts of money to get their result, the troll will now think twice before trying this shit again, and the system rolls on as-is.
Funny, I thought getting a patent troll to back off from forcing a company into expensive litigation that could clog the courts for years and prevent “real inventors” from doing their thing was justice, not abuse.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
I believe you are advocating the “never submit” response in every case of patent assertion. Or am I mistaken?
Re: Re: Re:11
I said nothing of the sort and saying I did makes you a liar. Whatever credibility you thought you had is now gone. Get fucked.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
From the article you are defending: “It appears that approach is inspiring other companies as well.”
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
The article, not Stephen T. Stone.
Learn some reading comprehension for God’s sake.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
Inspiring other people – independent inventors, no less – to fight patent trolls, yes. Why do you apparently think this is a bad thing?
I mean, quite apart from the fact that you have just admitted you’re attacking Stephen for something he never said himself, you don’t even have the context of the words correct in the first place.
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, and sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the patent holders will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that corporations are justified in endless legal warfare in the name of eradicating “patent trolls”.
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
the powers of the patent holders will be despotic and unlimited
There are groups with significant monetary and political clout who continue to believe that intellectual property lasts forever, "minus a day" to add a veneer of "limited times". So yes, they do believe so.
corporations are justified in endless legal warfare in the name of eradicating “patent trolls”
Most patent trolls are corporations. I don’t know why you insist on painting the penalization of abusers as some "Goliath versus David" martyrdom – oh, right. You think abusers of the system shouldn’t be blamed.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Re: Re: Re:5 Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
But just because there is a patent does not make this man-of-straw an inventor. Many patents have been given out (especially recently) for processes and ways of doing things (especially on the internet) that are so broad or been in such standard use by the industry that they should never have been granted.
Do you defend shitty patents just because a patent was filed and in your good book they are treated like an epistle from Paul himself?
The fact that you cannot divorce the concept of the inventor from the idea of the invention having to be novel, non-obvious, and useful makes it very hard to show you that some “original inventors” do not deserve any defense.
Re: Re: Re:6 Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
I would not be so quick to dismiss the actual value of real individual inventors. They are worth defending. Think about it.
Re: Re: Re:7
No one dismisses the value of real inventors.
We are dismissing the idea that the troll mentioned in the article is a real inventor—as well as your paper-thin “defense” of that troll.
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
Well, “paper thin” is more credit than you usually give me.
I stand in defense of the original inventor only.
You would agree they are worth defending.
Consider electric power distribution. Good one, right? The electric light bulb and the electric motor. The noble paperclip and Velcro, among many others.
Inventors are good. We all agree on that, right? Or is this the taliban forum?
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Your rhetorical gimmick will not work on me. Try to make an actual argument.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
The root of all my arguments emanate from my defense of the original inventor. Consider how entrenched legal warfare affects the original inventor. Not in a good way. That is my point.
Re: Re: Re:11
If we were talking about the “original inventor” instead of a troll that bought a bunch of patents for the sole purpose of turning the patent system into an extortion scheme, you might have a point.
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
You start to realize why Hamilton thumped his chest in support of John Steele when the news broke out that Steele admitted his guilt in the Prenda Law scheme.
Hamilton has a thing for defending the “original” trolls of IP law.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
None of which excuses horrible behavior. If a person invents a cure for cancer, it does not give him permission to shoot everyone up with AIDS. Nor does his status as an inventor grant him immunity from criticism.
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
But have you ever seen any defense of patent owners here?
Re: Re: Re:11 Re:
No, but I’m not doing your homework for you. I’ve read enough articles to note that Techdirt is willing to profile both the good and the bad, e.g. when it comes to police officers and their love-hate relationship with body cameras that store footage of their every move. It exposes their illicit behavior and vindicates them when they are wrongly accused.
I haven’t read articles specifically written in defense of patent owners, but you’re making the assumption that Techdirt assumes patent owners are bad by definition. What Techdirt does is criticize patent owners who act like litigious douchebags, and often do so against the “small inventors” you like to scream about so much, under threat of dragging them to court if they don’t financially ruin themselves.
It’s not my responsibility to account for your obsession over one query (which, I might add, has been answered multiple times over the months you’ve been trawling this site for sympathy).
Re: Re: Re:12 Re:
Yes I am assuming techdirt gets money from large corporations that are paying to promote their self serving agenda at the expense of the general public and individual inventors specifically.
I am pointing out that their ideology is designed to enrich the corporations only, not society as a whole.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
paying to promote their self serving agenda at the expense of the general public
You trolls claim that Techdirt isn’t worth taking seriously because nobody ever reads the site. out_of_the_blue famously claimed that only 27 Bangladeshi read this site.
So you’re saying large corporations funnel significant amounts of money into a website you claim nobody reads.
Sounds legit. /sarc
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
Citation or STFU.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
“Yes I am assuming”
I dare say that you’re assuming wrong. But, at least you admit that you’re just making it up rather than stating it as though it’s fact.
“I am pointing out that their ideology is designed to enrich the corporations only, not society as a whole.”
I’m curious, are you the same AC who comes in here to valiantly defend the RIAA and MPAA whenever it’s revealed how much they rip off their artists, or is that another idiot?
Re: Re: Re:14 Re:
That would be a separate idiot altogether.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
Re: Re: Re:3 Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
Funny,
I am also a small inventor, listed as inventor on two patents, both works for hire. They both ended up amounting to fancy gold stars, unrelated to whether the businesses actually sold the inventions.
Actually getting an invention into the marketplace requires quite a bit of sweat, and the most important protection there is this crazy socialist idea of fair and open markets and preventing individual players from acquiring outsize power over them. A certain public spiritedness also helps; inventing is very difficult if you are sick or have the cops shooting at you or are being dragged into court for unlawful practice of engineering.
Re: Re: Re: Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
Re: Re: Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
Oh yeah; what ever happened to the court case? I presume it’s ongoing since neither TD nor SA have published a blog about it lately?
Re: Re: Re: Do you see no possibility of abuse in the reverse?
First round Shiva basically got laughed out of court[1], he appealed(of course, not like his ego would allow anything else) and as far as I know it’s still kicking around in the legal cogs currently.
[1]Because really, when your claims can’t even survive the stage at which the judge is legally obligated to assume they’re correct you know you have no case to stand on.
Measured response
In any court actions you need to have a measured response; that is your actions are proportional to the actions of your opponent.
Or in the words of an old workmate: "Nuke’m till they glow".
The classic bully SOP...
Act big and tough until someone stands up to you, and then run away as fast as you can in an attempt to find an easier victim.
Bitmovin might not have been able to nail them to the courtroom and demand legal fees, but I hope they follow through on invalidating all the patents anyway to really make the message clear that even running away won’t save a troll.
‘Try to extort us and we will do our best to destroy you.’
Re: With respect to the writers of Taken...
We don’t know who you are. We don’t know what you want. If you are looking for a settlement, we can tell you we don’t have money. But what we do have are a very particular set of principles, princples we have acquired over a very long timeframe. Principles that make us a nightmare for people like you. If you drop this case now, that’ll be the end of it. We will not look for you, we will not pursue you. But if you don’t, we will look for you, we will find you, and our lawyers will destroy you.
Imagine a world without patent trolls
Imagine a patent system that went directly to trial in front of a jury. Trolls would be quickly identified and punished. Corporations in the wrong would be quickly found liable and forced to return their unlawful income. The best inventors would prosper, and the best inventions would benefit from scale. The public interest would be served, and the corporate interest made secondary.
From a corporate view, this is the end of the world.
From the public’s view, this is the beginning of a new era of endless invention and enlightenment.
Re: Imagine a world without patent trolls
How about Hong Kong?
By the way, the average juror or especially judge has no head for the technical arts involved in most inventions. What could possibly go wrong?
Re: Re: Imagine a world without patent trolls
It’s not a bug. It’s a feature.
How about a Patent Troll defence fund
Recall 10 or so years ago when the big tech companies agreed to pool patents and when doing so you agreed to never sue someone who had also contributed by any of your patents. (I may have this slightly off, but that is how I recall it).
How about a tech industry fund which is used to destroy patent trolls as per the Cloudflare strategy. The big firms could set it up with a tiny amount of their funds and allow smaller firms to join with smaller contributions. After the fund group have destroyed a few trolls the trolling would reduce.
Re: How about a Patent Troll defence fund
Congratulations! You’re about 75% of the way done understanding open source software and the fundamental concepts of the GPL.