EFF Wins Over Patent Troll Trying To Silence EFF Calling Its Patent Stupid

from the protected-speech-ftw dept

Earlier this year we wrote about the EFF going to court in California to protect it against an Australian patent troll, GEMSA, who objected to EFF naming a GEMSA patent one of EFF's "Stupid Patents of the Month." Apparently GEMSA sued in Australia, didn't properly serve EFF, and then got an injunction in Australia, which it threatened to enforce in California. EFF went to court using the all important SPEECH Act, which bars foreign judgments from being enforced in the US if they are in conflict with the First Amendment.

GEMSA, perhaps not surprisingly, declined to show up in the California court, leading EFF to move for default. A magistrate judge initially recommended against this, arguing that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over GEMSA. EFF asked the court to try again, and in a extraordinarily detailed and careful ruling, Judge Jon Tigar rejects the magistrate's recommendation and gives EFF the default judgment it sought. We've complained in the past that often the problem with default judgments is that courts are only too willing to just grant them if one party declines to show up for the case. This is not one of those situations. Tigar goes out of his way to explore pretty much every possible argument that GEMSA might have for why the court shouldn't have jurisdiction, for why the SPEECH Act should not apply and for why EFF's post may have been defamatory. And one by one by one, he points out why GEMSA is wrong and EFF is right. I won't repeat all the reasoning here, in part because there are so many different elements, though it's a fun and quick read in the filing.

Most importantly, after analyzing everything EFF put in the post, the court concludes: "In short, not one of the alleged defamatory statements would be defamatory under California law. EFF would not have been found liable for defamation under U.S. and California law." Combine that with the court recognizing that it has personal jurisdiction over GEMSA (GEMSA hurt its case here by continuing to appear in California courts in some of its patent lawsuits while ignoring this case...) and deciding that all of the elements of the SPEECH Act applies, and EFF prevails. And thus, it's protected speech to call GEMSA's patents stupid, and GEMSA can't censor EFF saying so here in California.

Given all that, we'd like to reiterate just how stupid GEMSA's stupid patent really is. It's for US Patent 6,690,400 on "virtual cabinest" and, damn, is it ever a stupid patent.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    ThaumaTechnician (profile), 20 Nov 2017 @ 1:34pm

    "Won over"?

    As in, the EFF convinced GEMSA that the EFF's thinking was correct?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 20 Nov 2017 @ 2:08pm

    Oops

    Combine that with the court recognizing that it has personal jurisdiction over GEMSA (GEMSA hurt its case here by continuing to appear in California courts in some of its patent lawsuits while ignoring this case...)

    Something which nicely destroys any attempt they might want to make should they try to argue that the EFF's victory here doesn't count because the court doesn't have jurisdiction over them, and/or their case was so rock solid because they won in australia.

    That they were willing to make use of other courts within the state while pulling a no-show here demonstrates that either they didn't actually care to do more than threaten, or, as I suspect, realized that they would be soundly trounced even if they did show up, and decided to spare themselves the extra hassle of defending a losing case, leaving them the option of empty bluster about how 'it really doesn't count, it was just a default judgement).'

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2017 @ 2:43pm

    I invented a virtual cabinest years ago!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 20 Nov 2017 @ 9:03pm

    Looked at patent..LOL?

    Its abit Gobbledygook, And the explanation is OFF..
    But Swapping an OS, while a computer has an OS running, is NOT a good thing..
    ANd the info on WHAT it is supposed to do? IS the same as Other Enviroments that sit on TOP of the OS..using a cabinet system to sort and such on the desktop..was done on the C64, and the Amiga..

    But he missed when he used a certain wording.. He didnt DEFINE..
    "super operating system based computers"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.