Name. And. Shame.
Eileen Shapiro. The headline should be: "FindTheBest destroys 'matchmaking' patent, pushes RICO case against patent troll Eileen Shapiro." (I'm assuming she's not the only one involved, but they've got her name in there.)
Don't let these people hide behind the names of their patent companies. Let them become famous for their malicious greediness.
I wish some enterprising young kids in the tech community could work out a technical or collective solution to the problem of patent trolls. They would be asking for punishment, to be sure. But I bet there are some really cool things that can be done here.
* One naive idea: a subscription-based nonprofit that pools legal expenses and member patent portfolios and fights defensive cases on behalf of startups and small businesses. The more such companies that join, the more formidable its portfolio would become.
* Another naive idea: publish information about patent cases underway in areas of the world that fall outside of the jurisdiction of a court imposing an injunction. I'm guessing this would need to be done by a third party so as not to prejudice the case of the business being sued by the troll, but I'm not a lawyer.
Patent portfolios don't work against trolls that don't have any business other than patent extortion.
> Another naive idea: publish information about patent cases underway in areas of the world that fall outside of the jurisdiction of a court imposing an injunction.
The court records are already public. It's the cases that settle that you never hear about, because the trolls demand that you sign an NDA. I don't know that publishing in a different country gets you out of the NDA.
What we really need is to start a PAC to abolish software patents and have everyone contribute money to it, and provide them with lots of "ammunition" (i.e. thousands of testimonials from startup founders explaining how the patent system is ruining everything) to bring to Congress to get this fixed. Note that this isn't the EFF -- they do good work, but they're litigators, not lobbyists. This is a situation where what we really need are lobbyists to push to get the law changed, and grass roots lobbying by individuals to the same end.
You might find this interesting: John Walker, one of the Autodesk founders, tried to popularize the same idea in the early 90s:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_105.html
Unfortunately, too many companies didn't want to give up the option to sue and the rise of the limited-liability shell company made it pointless as there's no point in counter-suing a company with no assets which will fold if any counterattack succeeds.
Every time I look up one of USPTO workers involved, their online profiles (FB, etc.) show how utterly unqualified they are to be involved in the patent process.
Doesn't that reflect more on whoever hired them?
I've also heard that the patent office doesn't care about the quality of patents so much as (1) processing applications cheaply and (2) not getting sued for denying questionable applications. Which again would reflect on the top-level people rather than on the individual patent examiners constrained by those policies.
I'd also like to point out that she's on the Board of Advisors for marketing/PR agency HB Agency: http://www.hbagency.com/about-us/board-of-advisors/
[1] http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/pe...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/newegg-on-trial-m...
Fighting and winning court cases seems like a much more productive strategy, though it is not something we can all engage in.
Also, as a matter of principle I don't think HNs title policy should be violated in order to spread a political message, no matter how much I agree with that message.
> "There is no inventive idea here," she wrote in her order.
> "Having two or more parties input preference data is not inventive.
> Matchmakers have been doing this for millennia... It is merely a
> mathematical manifestation of the underlying process behind matchmaking:
> determining good matches."
A good portion of such patents could've been banned with the new bill against patent trolls, if only companies like Microsoft and IBM wouldn't have lobbied so hard against such reform.
FindTheBest destroys patent troll (arstechnica.com)
18 points by sieva 2 hours ago | flag | cached | share | 1 comment
FindTheBest destroys “matchmaking” patent, pushes RICO case against troll alextingle 29 minutes ago | link
How does this comment further the discussion?
Maybe you could contribute some answers and further the discussion?
Indeed.
But if the story is "the courts are clogged with frivolous patent suits because the USPTO isn't doing its damned job", there is no debate.
People don't like to think. They want someone else to do the thinking for them. If a debate has no tribal affiliation, the two sides both seem to have an argument, and there's no authoritative answer, people throw up their hands and say "well, it's complicated". Change the story so that the courts can be that authority, and people will just take their answer as read.
So the issue stops being "are patent trolls a problem?" and becomes "how do we fix patent trolling?"
FindTheBest's founder was formerly founder/CEO of DoubleClick. I'm not sure going after someone with a VC background and a 10-figure exit to Google was very wise.
Currently we are in phase 1, the "Wild West". Anyone is free to grab some land and claim ownership. Gradually more civilized procedures will be developed to acquire (intellectual) property. But make no mistake. Software patents are in the interest of the dominating classes in the US and will be established. Two convincing arguments: Software patents
1. create revenue for the patent holders.
2. can be used to deter foreign competitors or at least to 'tax' them with patent fees.
tl;dr: unfortunately poor prospects for the anti-patent league.
http://www.amazon.com/Make-Your-Own-Luck-Practical-ebook/dp/...
EDIT: *books http://www.amazon.com/Fad-Surfing-In-The-Boardroom/dp/020144...
You have to pay the costs, even if you win, if:
i) You're offered an out of court settlement and
ii) You reject it and
iii) the settlement is more than the damages you are awarded by the court
This is to make sure that people try to settle things before going to court.
And I'm not sure how it would work for a non-practising entity. A company that has no assets apart from the patent that they're suing for would have no money to pay fees if they lose.
What a sensible judge they had. Perhaps noting that the rest of the world most certainly does not allow patents of quite this type might focus a few minds. This parasitic business opportunity (trolling) might be costing US its innovation lead...
By way of comparison, if I threatened to file bogus nuisance suits hoping for quick settlements for anything other than patent infringement, I very well could be held liable (and disbarred) under all manner of existing precedents.
It strikes me that a large number of patents would evaporate if this standard were more universally applied.