ahan!!!!!!!!!!

One would think that these patent trolls would eventually run out of money, but then I’m reminded how every now and then they actually win. Take for example when Eolas sued and won against Microsoft for 500M back in 2003. Now Eolas is up to their old tricks and suing virtually everyone else for the same thing only now it’s in the billions. What an insaitable bunch these trolls are.

You guys at TechCrunch use the term “Patent Troll” way too freely. If you were to define a Patent Troll, you would come up with names like Apple, IBM and Microsoft 90% of the time, 2% for small companies which own Intellectual Properties.

But, of course, if its Apple, they are not trolling, they are just protecting their rights….the truth is, most of the folks you call a “Patent Troll”"are small companies trying to build viable companies while being underfounded. Protecting their rights first, creates the company with its vision. Founding is the major issue here. Theft by big companies like IBM, Microsoft and Apple is seen as Just Doing Business, while a small inventor is seen as a Patent Troll because he or she filed to protect his or hers invention.

So cool it with the Patent Troll smack. Focus on the Big 3 which control 95% of all technology focused IPs, and yes many of these patents are licensed out…making them a Big Patent Troll by your definition of the term.

Apple, Microsoft and IBM make and ship products. Patent trolls typically don’t.

East Texas -sorry but that in itself makes them instant patent trolls. It’s synonymous with corruption, and if you can’t see that, based on all the cases filed, you sir, are just a troll. Period.

The entire economy of East Texas is based around finding in favor of the plaintiff.

Well, not everything is black and white. I agree there exists some patent trolling behavior. However, I think there exists enough blame to spread around. This blame also includes the BIG 3. And, no…I am not a patent troll! :) However, I have founded companies based on IP technology.

Why are these to patents so, simple… like we all knew technology would one day be able to do what these patents say, it seems to me, I could make a patent that says.

“A computer that could be folded away into your pocket, user would touch the screen to control the computer”

Or something like that…
It does not mean I made the computer that does that…

It doesn’t work like that. People patent specific methods (claims). So in the case of a folding computer, a patent would specify the precise mechanism used – rather than the concept of a ‘folding computer’. And the description in the claims must be written such that any individual well versed in the subject (mechanical engineering?) can comprehend the description and effectively build the invention themselves. For example, Apple have patented multitouch, but only their implementation thereof. Hence, Samsung and others are not being sued.

Robin, should software patents be invalidated? since you don’t MAKE and SHIP software. Coders “code” software and most of the time make it accessible for DOWNLOAD. With most of the world moving towards soft existance….that would mean, any work like software would not be protected by patents. So…most of the jobs of the future will sieze to exist. Because, after all, American’s hardly “make” and “ship” anything anymore. So pretty much Robin, you’re for a jobless America. I think they should make it easier for companies to search patents, before making and shipping a product already invented.

Except that Emblaze do make and ship a product.

Just sayin’.

Nice to know. What have you got to say now Robin?

I called Minerva a patent troll you morons.

I’m for a jobless America because I called a patent troll a patent troll? Sharp thinking there buddy.

how long do these patents last? i just read the minerva patent and it is very, very broad. fda drugs patents expire after a certain amount of time. without this, it would make it impossible to make cheap generic drugs.

Now were morons. I’m going for another cup of coffee….

Patent trolls get major share of their income from settlements like this one or from licensing. They may have some products but intent is to give more validity in their patent lawsuits, not to make money from sales.

See for yourself how Apple is different.

Will, If I invent a drug to cure your erecticle dysfunction. Why should anyone have rights to it even after 50 years? I invented it. I cured it. So why should I lose my rights, because I patent to protect my invention? doesn’t that seem stupid? Build a house and after 20 years, the state will take it or a neighbor has first dibs.

Bob – software is covered by copyright, and most of these ‘software patents’ are for things that any competent programmer can figure out on their own rather easily.

Being a programmer myself, and knowing lots of others, it is pretty common these days to have the Executive and legal teams at companies asking programmers to file patents on EVERYTHING, and bringing pressure to bear when the programmers push back and say that filing such patents would be silly.

Because patents weren’t intended to grant perpetual rights. They were intended to reward innovation with TEMPORARY protection from competition.

These days, most patents are vague, confusingly worded, extremely broad, and either filed speculatively or defensively. They do nothing to increase innovation in a world where technology can change in a matter of months (as opposed to 20 years).

Patent reform is the 800 lb gorilla in the room that Congress has been ignoring for years.

Samsung and others are not sued because they likely hold similar patents, and would countersue.

The patent game today is a cross between the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) philosophy and playing poker blind with 5 decks. Everyone has cards, and they are assumed to be good cards until they are laid on the table.

And then, only a judge can really decide which cards have the highest value in any given hand, which makes East Texas the preferred venue for the trolls, as the judges there have an economic interest in affirming the trolls’ patents.

“Will, If I invent a drug to cure your erecticle dysfunction. Why should anyone have rights to it even after 50 years? I invented it. I cured it. So why should I lose my rights, because I patent to protect my invention? doesn’t that seem stupid? Build a house and after 20 years, the state will take it or a neighbor has first dibs.”

because ideas/material goods are not for the sole benefit of the inventor/creator of said idea. writing is primarily for the benefit of the public. same for material inventions so that innovation can adaptation can occur. if you create a cup and patent it, eventually somebody will create something that will be used with that cup and theoretically you could sue the person for making a change to your cup since TADA you will forever own patent to that invention!

When you have no products AT ALL and just a portfolio of patents that have been scooped up elsewhere? And then you sit on those patents and sue the biggest company that’s using something vaguely similar? You’re a patent troll, plain and simple.

You building a house doesn’t stop me from building a different house. In fact, since a house can only house so many people at one time, it’s actually economically efficient to have many houses rather than just one.

That doesn’t work for patents. In theory, I could just “build” a different idea to patent. But at some point, you’re going to run out of good ways to solve a particular problem. Imagine if someone had patented the round wheel. If the inventor owned the rights to it forever, and was a jerk about letting other people license that right, that person would be able to single-handedly grind all technological progress to a halt.

That, or we’d be using square wheels or something.

Robin has a point. Bob, you jumped on what Richard said because you thought it helped your argument. Apparently, you were too obsessed with winning to notice it did not help your argument at all.

At some point, you have to stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

You need to do some reading on what patent law’s aim is. From your posts, it’s clear you have no idea.

I always take a deep breath before checking comments related to patent issues. Simply, cuz it’s frustrating and amusing to see people without the slightest idea of how the patent system work, and start out bashing big corporates and the mostly innocent patent office.

Patent infringements occur when an existing invention/patent by another that DOES NOT PREDATE the patent who claims infringement and is either identical or an obvious variation to the patented CLAIMS. So, the issue is whether the invention/patent by another with a LATER date is not an obvious variation of the granted patent or not. This is not some big corporate with lots of money stealing KNOWN ideas and crushing the little people. Lesson learned with Apple Vs HTC. http://2su.de/1EFf

Good comment!

What I hate about Minerva’s patent is that it is a broad patent for an obvious idea. I took a quick look at the patent. It is too general. They might as well have patented the portable electronics device.

I have read all the comments. And, they all seem to point towards invalidating all Software Patents. Ok, so they are now invalidated.

Lets see how loud the BIG 3 (Apple, Microsft and IBM) will scream. At one side you guys make sense, but you fail to see the real enemy here. Its not just about a law suit from one troll or another, its a feeding frenzy created by these 3 Giants that own 95% of all Software Patents. So if you want to write about Patent Trolls…than write about the big patent trolls here.

And, no, they don’t make and ship all the products they patent. Most of them are licensed out for revenue. All I’m asking for is a clear view of the problem and not just a narrow one. The big 3 are not innocent here. They are not, this is a fact.

No, Apple, Microsoft, Apple and Google…they are innocent, because they don’t buy the IPs outright. They purchase a small little company called Parzee with the IPs associated with them. So, no, they are not buying patents, they are buying a startup. Give me a break. They buy the small companies, because its cheap to just buy them out right with property. They prevent innovation just like patent trolls.

But you can’t patent a house can you Bob?

You have somehow failed to realize the difference between a company that sells services and goods for people and a company which exists solely for to self serve, make no products for people, make no contribution to people whatsoever.

You can’t patent a house can Bob?

“Many software patent holders license their patents in exchange for monetary royalties. Some patent owners, such as IBM, are in the business of selling the products they patent and view licensing as a way to increase the return on their investment in innovation. IBM generates an additional $US 2 billion per year by licensing.” – Wikipedia

This is 1 of the BIG 3. This is a BIG Patent Troll. Do your research on Software Patents, who owns them? and who trolls them. Its Microsoft, IBM, Apple, Sun Systems, etc etc. Don’t blind yourself, lift up the viel. Look, I respect your views, but don’t be one sided. This is not Fox News. Fine, write about Patent Trolls, but talk about the Big Players as well.

To Robin’s defense he did not call the Emblaze Group “patent trolls”.

I have been personally hard on Robin in the past for what I felt was using that term loosely but clearly the above article reads very responsible and the first company does come off as a patent troll. As someone who does build and deliver real products with patents filed, I have no love for people who patent and not build then look to only sue those who do.

But IBM does make products. They are not just in business to manage patents. There is absolutely no question whether IBM, Apple or Sun/Oracle could use their patent portfolio to build real products in he future.

There are some patents that are around where the inventor or the assignee never intend on making the thing.

But for small companies that do create a product to align with their patent documents end up getting accused of not being “big” or “successful” so they can only get paid by suing.

Take me for example. Just last week 60 companies announced Ultraviolet, an “access anywhere” digital media initiative they are still developing.

I could tell you I have a patent app and 100% working application you can use right now that delivers this.

But because I am some small company with no reason for any of the press to pay me any attention, I am now forced to sell my company to one of those 60 companies and receive a royalty like I never existed.

If I waited 5 years then sue each company for a billion each, then Robin would be calling me a “small company that could not find success so he’s suing this product” when indeed I sit here today with it all.

Simply you can’t win either way in todays world, innovation is dead unless you are Apple, Google, Facebook or funded by one of the big name VCs.

The patent covers “a mobile entertainment and communication device in a palm-held size, housing has a cellular or satellite telephone capable of wireless communication with the Internet and one or more replaceable memory card sockets for … recording data directly from the Internet and, in particular, musical performances that then can be selectively reproduced by the device for the enjoyment of the user,” according to the patent’s abstract.

So you just need to dream it up and you can patent it ?

“A banana shaped object that can vibrate ultrasonically and is waterproof, hypoallergenic and the vibrations can be controlled remotely by a bluetooth enabled device” Wow now just lodge a US patent and wait for someone to build the next generation dong dong and I’m rich. And it took all of 30 seconds – let;s see, 30 per hour, 8 hours per day, 5 days a week – at this rate I can dream big.

How about amending the patent laws to make them “REAL” ie require the patent applicant to produce one before he can be granted a patent ?

The system is absurd, like being able to patent genes which and not man-made or man altered – just simply identified as existing.

William, I agree with you totally. I am sticking up for the folks like yourself. Folks need to stop reading the headlines that start with “Patent Troll”. They need to look at the whole picture of what’s truly happening. You have described it pretty well. We need to stick up for the inventors and not for the big companies that suck out innovation just for themselves. This is not the case always, but I bet 90% is not far from the truth number.

I agree man. At least prove on video that the Inventor has a working prototype. If Tufts University applicants are making videos as part of the screening process, then the USPTO should require proof of concept as a Youtube video on file in PAIR with the app.

yes

You are an idiot, emblaze provides value added services to about 200 operators worldwide

Let’s step back, clear our head and really think. Especially seemingly so in the wireless industry, what are the benefits of allowing almost every little new/different method/solution/scheme to be patented in the 1st place?

Patented wireless material often goes into Standards. Only a handful of big companies can afford to patent every chance they get and it has the chain reaction effect (i.e. patent over patent, patent after patent), hence the LTE patent battle in session right now.

Standardization plus patenting ideas that are not fundamental for other ideas to build on is totally a closed group effort. This is limiting participation from non-WG folks from developed and developing countries. This stifles innovations from a broader audience; hamper collective collaboration (i.e. working together, peer reviews, revise and refine) for better results, increase cost due to multiple royalties and monopolies opportunities in driving the technology forward let alone slowing down progress. It is most certainly prospering the whole industry of dealing with patent infringement claims and counter claims.

The “Open Source” philosophy has recently been applied to designs and architectures involving Standards — the Open Design and Architecture Initiative (ODAI).

Check it out: http://www.odaiworld.org.