Fark Founder Drew Curtis Explains How Fark Beat a Patent Troll 59
Velcroman1 links to this coverage of Drew Curtis's explanation of how his company, Fark, managed to beat a patent troll's lawsuit alleging infringement of a patent on distribution of news releases by email. From the article: "It boils down to one thing: don't negotiate with terrorists," Curtis said during a talk at the TED 2012 conference in Long Beach, Calif."
Nice Video (Score:2)
I watched it yesterday and a nice tip is to threaten to make their lives irritating so they can't get an easy win.
As much as I hate to say it.. (Score:5, Funny)
If Fox News' Derp-O-Sphere can label patent trolls as terrorists and inform the pitchfork and shotgun base.... that *might* actually be helpful.
Re:As much as I hate to say it.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Instead, tell Ted Nugent they are wild turkeys.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:As much as I hate to say it.. (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it's about the same because the guy selling the hunting permits is always a Republican.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Next you'll be trying to invite them on a hunting trip with Dick Cheney ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:As much as I hate to say it.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If Fox News' Derp-O-Sphere can label patent trolls as terrorists and inform the pitchfork and shotgun base.... that *might* actually be helpful.
That would be nice as patent trolls care little for political affiliation and will happily shake down a republican as well as a democrat. But alas the comment section for this story on Foxnews is mostly filled with complaints about Fark, not the lesson from the story itself. People seem content to hate each other for their political leanings, and won't realize some issues transcend politics and need cooperation to root out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about... (Score:5, Funny)
Why wouldn't you want the truth?
Re: (Score:1)
...a different viewpoint is construed as a lie.
Also a lie is construed as a lie. And lies is what what Fox News does. They even had to defend in court their right to broadcast lies and still call themselves "News". And since they cannot be called "news", please refrain from comparing them to "news channels".
Non Fox (Techdirt) link (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120418/04260518542/farks-drew-curtis-explains-how-to-beat-patent-troll-live-to-tell-tale.shtml [techdirt.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You should have recorded that conversation and had it played to the jury.
In East Texas there might have even been a lynch mob afterwards.
Re: (Score:2)
SANE and CUPS (Score:5, Funny)
Umm, how do you record a letter
SANE [wikipedia.org]
and play it back later?
CUPS [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That's normally considered an illegal wiretap, now when the answering machine says "This call maybe monitored for quality control purposes" I hang up and call back with the recorder running so I have a recording of them giving me permission to monitor, electronically, with my recorder; check with your lawyer in your jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
At which point, you have a malicious prosecution claim, and reason to request censure of their Atty.
Re: (Score:2)
They came back with a letter that they don't care and their previous offer of licensing it for 2% of revenue was off the table but we can license it for 4% plus a few thousand bucks to pay for their lawyer's time reading our letter, or for $sixfigures we can explain it to the judge and hope the judge and/or jury understands what a server is.
Sounds like this should be changed from a civil case to criminal, with charges of extortion and racketeering. The patent trolls and their lawyers in this case need to do some hard federal prison time for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Since it costs $2 million to defend one of these cases, seems like sooner or later somebody is just going to hire a hit, it has to be cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is another option. At times, it does seem like the only magic bullet for this trend may be the thing called real bullets.
Re: (Score:2)
---
- While tacking on a fee of a few thousand to read your response might be reasonable, going from 2% to 4% seems like harassment. The "triple reverse legal fees" argument might apply.
- Also, if the original 2% figure was just, why would a simple letter from you be a reason to up it to 4%? Either somebody's manic or your letter showed [to
A Fox Link? (Score:1, Funny)
Why use Fox "News", rather Fark.com itself? (Score:5, Informative)
Best defense against a true patent troll (Score:5, Interesting)
"The patent troll realized we were going to fight them instead of settle, so they asked for our best offer. I said, how about you get nothing and drop the lawsuit? They accepted" - Drew Curtis
True patent trolls, entities that solely exist to acquire patent portfolios and weaponize them for profit, do not know anything about the content of the actual patent. I mean, sure, they might read one or two and quote whichever small pieces they understand of them, but just like we techies struggle with legalese, lawyers struggle with technical documentation. If the case is strong enough, or has a very high earning potential, they will enlist the help of a technical consultant. This is a guy like you and I who will interpret and vulgarize the patent's claims into lay-speak. Now, most lawyers are pretty sharp, but they're not engineers. Their skills are honed differently, to such a degree that even a lawyer that specialized in tech IP cases will have a very hard time truly understanding the subtleties of why X database is different from Y. Since we techies aren't always favorable to lawyers and their destructive pursuits, they have to incentivize with money. The tech expert will be paid an hourly consulting fee, often supplemented with a settlement bonus if they win, as further incentive to provide competitive insight to benefit the troll.
The thing to remember about patent suits is they often are carried out by people who didn't write the patent application, don't understand it, don't even have the slightest clue how it's intented to work. If they don't have access to the guy who actually invented the patented thingy, they're relying on low quality information. The people who are being sued are, by definition, working in the field and possess far more expert knowledge than their tormentors. They just look for any language they can abuse, and they know the very threat of litigation is their greatest asset, because an actual court battle means going toe-to-toe with other tech experts who are NOT on the troll's payroll.
As a defendant, if you do your homework about the plaintiff and find they're in this position of technical inferiority, Drew Curtis' tactic can work very well. Call their bluff!
Disclaimer: I used to work at a law firm, and was occasionally called upon as a technical consultant on IP suits. Can't tell you which, but it was one of the reasons why I left. I tolerate most lawyers but I despise patent trolls.
Re:Best defense against a true patent troll (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, all of the patent troll lawsuits that have ever been filed were filed only because someone called their bluff. The reason people settle is that A. some of the patent trolls are too clueless to know that they are bluffing, and B.when they file suit anyway, the cost of defending the lawsuit could easily exceed the requested settlement.
A better way to prevent patent trolls is to develop a reputation for stomping them into the ground with countersuits (ideally, before they even have the chance to file their lawsuit). Even if they have never produced a product, you can still pull together undeclared prior art and sue to have pretty much their entire patent portfolio overturned. Do that a couple of times and the trolls will think twice about talking to you unless they have successfully sued a fair number of other companies first. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
True patent trolls, entities that solely exist to acquire patent portfolios and weaponize them for profit, do not know anything about the content of the actual patent.
Straight up WRONG. For every non-techie litigator that a patent troll has, there is a technical patent attorney with an engineering degree that is supporting the litigator.
I say this having represented defendants in about a dozen patent troll cases.
Sincerely,
A patent attorney with a comp. sci. degree
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, now George Soros is behind Fark, too? Is there anything he ISN'T behind nowadays?
A question for IP attorneys (Score:4, Insightful)
Has *anyone* ever fought back asserting that by Article 1, section 8(8) specifically says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors", and since trolls is neither the author nor inventor, nor to they use the material of the patent to produce the product of the patent, their claim to the patent is invalid?
mark
Re:A question for IP attorneys (Score:4, Informative)
Has *anyone* ever fought back asserting that by Article 1, section 8(8) specifically says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors", and since trolls is neither the author nor inventor, nor to they use the material of the patent to produce the product of the patent, their claim to the patent is invalid?
Not that I know of, but they would fail. The Constitution doesn't define what a patent is, but rather gives Congress the power to pass laws securing time-limited monopolies for copyrights and patents. In the use of that power, they passed 35 USC 261, which states:
Subject to the provisions of this title, patents shall have the attributes of personal property.
Applications for patent, patents, or any interest therein, shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing. The applicant, patentee, or his assigns or legal representatives may in like manner grant and convey an exclusive right under his application for patent, or patents, to the whole or any specified part of the United States.
So, arguing that the troll's claim to the patent is invalid means you're arguing that Congress lacked the power to pass that law... Specifically, you'd have to argue that letting inventors sell their patents doesn't encourage at least some inventors to invent in the first place, and I doubt such an argument would be entertained by any court, much less the Supreme Court.