A patent troll backs off(sparkfun.com)
sparkfun.com
A patent troll backs off
https://www.sparkfun.com/news/3970
221 comments
It is the system but I have yet to find anyone that understands the process of how they do it. I do because I experienced it. From the aspect of them stealing my patent. They do not purchase low-quality patents it is far different. It is time to expose the methods they use and the assistance they get from the examiners. From day one of the application they do an assignment and a Provisional Application that goes expired. Attorney's from different offices use same customer number that go to a central office the inventor is unaware of. Then an Attorney from that office files a POA and Oath to a foreign priority Application and in my case DECEASED.
Thank you, Sparkfun, for spending the time and resources to defend the principles of civil society.
Can Sparkfun now counter-sue for costs and maybe even Barratry?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_(common_law)
Can Sparkfun now counter-sue for costs and maybe even Barratry?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_(common_law)
Thank you Sparkfun.
I'll be ordering some circuity toys to let them know!
I'll be ordering some circuity toys to let them know!
A patent troll brought a lawsuit against my company, CoalitionTechnologies.com, in the Eastern District Court of Texas. My attorney and I were able to get them to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit shortly afterwards. I won’t be naming the patent troll here as they voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit.
Coalition has a policy of never settling frivolous lawsuits and fighting all the way to the bloody end. We recently won a judgement with attorneys fees in another lawsuit.
When I first received the notice that I was being sued, I freaked out a little bit. I didn’t sleep well for the next couple of nights, but began working on this right away. I contacted a couple of dozen Texas patent attorneys, most of whom quoted outrageous prices ranging from $200 to $600 per hour and some asking for a $25k retainer upfront! I soon realized that all of these Texas patent attorneys are in the same game with the patent trolls… these attorneys make money the longer the legal process gets drawn out. I was contacted by Amit Agarwal (310-351-6596 – based in LA but he can operate anywhere) and at first I was turned off by his aggressive approach. However, I spoke with my other attorney and he said it won’t hurt to give him a shot. I signed up with Amit and it was the best decision I could have made. Amit brought a very aggressive approach and quickly got the patent troll to back down and dismiss the lawsuit.
The lawsuit was mostly dismissed after Amit really went after the troll and their attorneys with some great research and motions he spent Christmas writing.
Coalition has a policy of never settling frivolous lawsuits and fighting all the way to the bloody end. We recently won a judgement with attorneys fees in another lawsuit.
When I first received the notice that I was being sued, I freaked out a little bit. I didn’t sleep well for the next couple of nights, but began working on this right away. I contacted a couple of dozen Texas patent attorneys, most of whom quoted outrageous prices ranging from $200 to $600 per hour and some asking for a $25k retainer upfront! I soon realized that all of these Texas patent attorneys are in the same game with the patent trolls… these attorneys make money the longer the legal process gets drawn out. I was contacted by Amit Agarwal (310-351-6596 – based in LA but he can operate anywhere) and at first I was turned off by his aggressive approach. However, I spoke with my other attorney and he said it won’t hurt to give him a shot. I signed up with Amit and it was the best decision I could have made. Amit brought a very aggressive approach and quickly got the patent troll to back down and dismiss the lawsuit.
The lawsuit was mostly dismissed after Amit really went after the troll and their attorneys with some great research and motions he spent Christmas writing.
I don't know if your work in SEO has affected your speech but this sounds a 100% like an ad that people write about themselves online to promote their services. It follows all the patterns of false testimonials you'd usually hear in infomercials.
Sorry if it's genuine, I also sometimes like to recommend people and companies I've had good experiences with.
Sorry if it's genuine, I also sometimes like to recommend people and companies I've had good experiences with.
I agree it sounds like an ad. A quick search found this however: https://joelx.com/how-to-beat-a-patent-troll-in-east-texas/1...
which makes me think it's legit. Weird it's almost verbatim from the blog post, but hey why bother spending time on a new write-up I guess.
My apologies for my writing style, I guess my years in SEO have had a strong effect!
I'm extremely grateful for the work Amit did for me, he did not compensate me or even request that I post this for him.
As the original blog post said, patent trolls are predators that rely on the fact that it costs companies over a million dollars to defend a case even if they win so that they can extort tens of thousands of dollars without much work.
We need to abolish the patent system altogether, as everyone on here knows ideas are worthless and execution is everything. The best way to protect real innovators is to prevent artificial monopolies rising up preventing them from competing in the market.
I'm extremely grateful for the work Amit did for me, he did not compensate me or even request that I post this for him.
As the original blog post said, patent trolls are predators that rely on the fact that it costs companies over a million dollars to defend a case even if they win so that they can extort tens of thousands of dollars without much work.
We need to abolish the patent system altogether, as everyone on here knows ideas are worthless and execution is everything. The best way to protect real innovators is to prevent artificial monopolies rising up preventing them from competing in the market.
Another comment of author is also their another blog post.
Well unless people are selling their hacker news accounts, it’s seems genuine and I just think the poster was very appreciative and hence posting. Sometimes we can all be too cynical
It's not like they were hocking their company. They specifically gave out information on someone they hired outside of the company. Yes, there a little self-promotion listing URL and what not, but it was much more about the attorney they hired. meh
It's not necessarily just the content, but the style and delivery of that content.
Which in this case, certainly reads like a boilerplate advertisement you read on a Top 10 How To Advertise listicle. Good faith advice or not.
Which in this case, certainly reads like a boilerplate advertisement you read on a Top 10 How To Advertise listicle. Good faith advice or not.
I guess you'd rather see something like:
Yo dawg!!! You'll never guess what happened to me when those bizsnitch little lawyers tried to sue me for some whack azz shiznit yo! Yo! You gotta call my bro the bizsnitch laywer asskickin mofo! Just smash them digits 555-212-0420 and he'll go to work for you yo!
Or maybe somewhere in between?
Yo dawg!!! You'll never guess what happened to me when those bizsnitch little lawyers tried to sue me for some whack azz shiznit yo! Yo! You gotta call my bro the bizsnitch laywer asskickin mofo! Just smash them digits 555-212-0420 and he'll go to work for you yo!
Or maybe somewhere in between?
Of course you don't know that the company is real, that the person is who they claim they are, nor do you know whether they have an advertising contract with the person they recommend.
Also there is no need for the caricature, there are certainly more sincere sounding ways to recommend someone than following the standard testimonial script:
"I am [person] with [relevant characteristics or employment]. I had this exact [problem] and thankfully [advertiser] was able to help me.
When I first got this [problem] I was [emotionally affected in a personal and relatable way]. Other companies told me they had better [price/solutions]. Thankfully I found [advertiser] and they were able to help me like no others. [Short snippet demonstrating advertiser holds values important to the target demographic (price/effectiveness/privacy/dedication/...)]. I would definitely trust them again if [problem] happened again. [Prompt for you to trust them and give them your business.]"
Here are testimonials for cash for gold for comparison: https://vimeo.com/35628298
Also there is no need for the caricature, there are certainly more sincere sounding ways to recommend someone than following the standard testimonial script:
"I am [person] with [relevant characteristics or employment]. I had this exact [problem] and thankfully [advertiser] was able to help me.
When I first got this [problem] I was [emotionally affected in a personal and relatable way]. Other companies told me they had better [price/solutions]. Thankfully I found [advertiser] and they were able to help me like no others. [Short snippet demonstrating advertiser holds values important to the target demographic (price/effectiveness/privacy/dedication/...)]. I would definitely trust them again if [problem] happened again. [Prompt for you to trust them and give them your business.]"
Here are testimonials for cash for gold for comparison: https://vimeo.com/35628298
This is hilarious if it's satire. Pretty sad if its a genuine recommendation.
But you are right, its too hard to tell.
But you are right, its too hard to tell.
> outrageous prices ranging from $200 to $600 per hour and some asking for a $25k retainer upfront!
I hate to tell you this, but that’s not at all outrageous. And you get what you pay for.
I hate to tell you this, but that’s not at all outrageous. And you get what you pay for.
For a small business, heck for most of us, that’s too much
I'm not in law so I don't know how the price is calculated, but how can this be fair when the highest neurosurgeon wage is 192 usd per hour on ziprecruiter?
Maybe the decent neurosurgeons aren’t on ziprecruiter, I dunno. But $200/hour is absolutely nothing for a lawyer. Even a smallish/midsize firm is going to be billing out first-year associates higher than that. $600/hour is pretty ordinary.
And just to be clear, this is what the law firm charges for a lawyer’s time. It’s not the take home pay for the lawyer.
And just to be clear, this is what the law firm charges for a lawyer’s time. It’s not the take home pay for the lawyer.
> And just to be clear, this is what the law firm charges for a lawyer’s time. It’s not the take home pay for the lawyer
Ah, that makes more sense. I know someone who worked in finance. Her employer charged clients 500 euros per hour for her work and she saw around a fifth of that
Ah, that makes more sense. I know someone who worked in finance. Her employer charged clients 500 euros per hour for her work and she saw around a fifth of that
Most surgeons are self employed. Employees usually make less than business owners. I know personally several surgeons earning around $5 million per year.
[deleted]
> with some great research and motions he spent Christmas writing.
It helps that Amit doesn't celebrate Christmas and needs holidays.
It helps that Amit doesn't celebrate Christmas and needs holidays.
Don't ever mention Christmas in a professional setting.
One day I got invited for interview at a famous SV company who has offices in Europe, in a snowy and catholic country.
It was the end of the year, so on the way out, with a good mood I said "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year" to the people I just met.
Later on, the recruiter explained to me that the team felt offended that I used the word "Christmas" (but still got an offer).
One day I got invited for interview at a famous SV company who has offices in Europe, in a snowy and catholic country.
It was the end of the year, so on the way out, with a good mood I said "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year" to the people I just met.
Later on, the recruiter explained to me that the team felt offended that I used the word "Christmas" (but still got an offer).
Seems a bit extreme to be literally offended, and I’m not even Christian.
Is it surprising to you that not everyone celebrates Christmas?
Why is it that those that don't get so offended when someone wishes them good tidings from their practices?
What's surprising is that you can't expect people to be charitable in their interpretations and take things in the spirit it is meant. I make Marx look like a Bible beater, but I wont take offense at someone wishing me Merry Christmas. Or Eid, Diwali, Purim, or anything else for that matter.
A Pyrrhic victory; they are out $12k and the troll is free to go harass the next company.
They did produce a fairly good pattern for the next company approached by Altair Logix. Including links to prior art, counterclaim documents, etc.
> Altair Logix
Do you think those kind of company keep their name same for more than few years
Do you think those kind of company keep their name same for more than few years
The patent number stays the same though.
That's all standard in a patent litigation and is by far the least expensive element of what you'd be paying an atty to do. That is to say, it's basically trivial to get an atty to say that you should contend invalidity via a counterclaim (especially in light of how §101 is treated lately). What costs is getting an atty to actually find the invalidating prior art, draft up the counterclaims, etc.
Sorry, I'm confused. If Altair Logix sues some other party, for the same patent, why is this linked list of invalidating prior art and counter claims not useful in reducing cost?
This is what I got from reading your comment:
Least Expensive Element: Invalidating prior art, counterclaim documents.
Actually Cost Money: Invalidating prior art, drafting counterclaim documents.
Least Expensive Element: Invalidating prior art, counterclaim documents.
Actually Cost Money: Invalidating prior art, drafting counterclaim documents.
Well that's because you neglected the part where the Least Expensive Element is an attorney telling you that those things should be done, not atually doing them.
"We’ve sold 221 units over the entire time we carried the pcDuino. You want to sue us for $500 worth of made-up royalties to use your bogus patent? Sure. Come get it."
I think it's not the 500 USD they are looking for, but rather to win a court case against someone who has not the ressources to defend himself, so they can reuse this case as an example in a more lucrative litigation.
I think it's not the 500 USD they are looking for, but rather to win a court case against someone who has not the ressources to defend himself, so they can reuse this case as an example in a more lucrative litigation.
Pyrrhic victory? $12k is cheap. Generally, patent litigation is the sport of kings. That $12k means that Altair Logix gave up quickly, which in itself is useful information. $12k means that small cap companies should fight these trolls.
On the contrary, this patent could now be useless even if it doesn't get invalidated:
It's expired for future use, and according to Sparkfun's response it can't be asserted against prior infringers because Huawei owned it and shipped devices without marking the patent on them.
It's expired for future use, and according to Sparkfun's response it can't be asserted against prior infringers because Huawei owned it and shipped devices without marking the patent on them.
Perhaps, but it did impose a cost on the troll which makes their venture less lucrative and hopefully more importantly, a psychological and emotional cost on the lawyers who's working to extort people.
Also missing from the article is an explanation of why they spent $12k defending against an expired patent?
Because the allegations are for a period when the patent was not expired.
Getting qualified people to dig up prior art and write responses ain't cheap.
The patent is expired now, but they can still sue for infringement that occurred during the life of the patent. In fact, this is how it goes for many patents given the lifecycle.
Because you don't just automatically win because the patent is expired. You have to hire a lawyer to research the patent and find out it's expired, then, at minimum, your lawyer has to go to court and prove that the patent is expired.
But patent terms are 20 years. It had clearly been more than 20 years.
Why didn’t the lawyer simply state this in their counterclaim? I don’t actually see it anywhere in the counterclaim.
Why didn’t the lawyer simply state this in their counterclaim? I don’t actually see it anywhere in the counterclaim.
You can, in some cases, sue for damages accrued up to six years in the past. You don't have to sue for those before the patent expires. You just stop accruing new damages when the patent expires. Past damages is what was allegedly at issue here. (Which is why the attorneys were talking about "marking," as it's a factor in whether you can get pre-suit damages for some types of claims in some cases.)
Thank you for this!
[deleted]
>You have to hire a lawyer to research the patent and find out it's expired
You can do this yourself though
You can do this yourself though
Free maybe, but at least not funded as a settlement would have.
I'm reminded of how Newegg and Cloudflare have dealt with this kind of thing.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/11/the-hunted-becomes-the-hun...
At one time at least they seemed to view it as a fight to the death. When offered a settlement they'd just keep going.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/11/the-hunted-becomes-the-hun...
At one time at least they seemed to view it as a fight to the death. When offered a settlement they'd just keep going.
Unfortunately, however, looks like the nice people[1] at Blackbird still keep on working their stuff, so it was not a fight to the death.
https://www.blackbird-tech.com/blackbird-technologies-settle...
[1]that was sarcasm.
https://www.blackbird-tech.com/blackbird-technologies-settle...
[1]that was sarcasm.
They patented a switch?? How can this patent pass the basic check?
And Blue Jeans Cable's 2008 response to a Monster Cable demand letter: The CEO of BlueJeans was an ex-litigator; excerpt:
<quote>
After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1985, I spent nineteen years in litigation practice, with a focus upon federal litigation involving large damages and complex issues. My first seven years were spent primarily on the defense side, where I developed an intense frustration with insurance carriers who would settle meritless claims for nuisance value when the better long-term view would have been to fight against vexatious litigation as a matter of principle. In plaintiffs' practice, likewise, I was always a strong advocate of standing upon principle and taking cases all the way to judgment, even when substantial offers of settlement were on the table.
I am "uncompromising" in the most literal sense of the word. If Monster Cable proceeds with litigation against me I will pursue the same merits-driven approach; I do not compromise with bullies and I would rather spend fifty thousand dollars on defense than give you a dollar of unmerited settlement funds.
As for signing a licensing agreement for intellectual property which I have not infringed: that will not happen, under any circumstances, whether it makes economic sense or not.
I say this because my observation has been that Monster Cable typically operates in a hit-and-run fashion. Your client threatens litigation, expecting the victim to panic and plead for mercy; and what follows is a quickie negotiation session that ends with payment and a licensing agreement. Your client then uses this collection of licensing agreements to convince others under similar threat to accede to its demands.
Let me be clear about this: there are only two ways for you to get anything out of me. You will either need to (1) convince me that I have infringed, or (2) obtain a final judgment to that effect from a court of competent jurisdiction.
It may be that my inability to see the pragmatic value of settling frivolous claims is a deep character flaw, and I am sure a few of the insurance carriers for whom I have done work have seen it that way; but it is how I have done business for the last quarter-century and you are not going to change my mind.
If you sue me, the case will go to judgment, and I will hold the court's attention upon the merits of your claims--or, to speak more precisely, the absence of merit from your claims--from start to finish.
Not only am I unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes rather miss it.
</quote>
(Extra paragraphing added.)
https://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/response041408.pdf
<quote>
After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1985, I spent nineteen years in litigation practice, with a focus upon federal litigation involving large damages and complex issues. My first seven years were spent primarily on the defense side, where I developed an intense frustration with insurance carriers who would settle meritless claims for nuisance value when the better long-term view would have been to fight against vexatious litigation as a matter of principle. In plaintiffs' practice, likewise, I was always a strong advocate of standing upon principle and taking cases all the way to judgment, even when substantial offers of settlement were on the table.
I am "uncompromising" in the most literal sense of the word. If Monster Cable proceeds with litigation against me I will pursue the same merits-driven approach; I do not compromise with bullies and I would rather spend fifty thousand dollars on defense than give you a dollar of unmerited settlement funds.
As for signing a licensing agreement for intellectual property which I have not infringed: that will not happen, under any circumstances, whether it makes economic sense or not.
I say this because my observation has been that Monster Cable typically operates in a hit-and-run fashion. Your client threatens litigation, expecting the victim to panic and plead for mercy; and what follows is a quickie negotiation session that ends with payment and a licensing agreement. Your client then uses this collection of licensing agreements to convince others under similar threat to accede to its demands.
Let me be clear about this: there are only two ways for you to get anything out of me. You will either need to (1) convince me that I have infringed, or (2) obtain a final judgment to that effect from a court of competent jurisdiction.
It may be that my inability to see the pragmatic value of settling frivolous claims is a deep character flaw, and I am sure a few of the insurance carriers for whom I have done work have seen it that way; but it is how I have done business for the last quarter-century and you are not going to change my mind.
If you sue me, the case will go to judgment, and I will hold the court's attention upon the merits of your claims--or, to speak more precisely, the absence of merit from your claims--from start to finish.
Not only am I unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes rather miss it.
</quote>
(Extra paragraphing added.)
https://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/response041408.pdf
Drawing a line in the sand and threatening mutual destruction is a good way to make the trolls move one to an easier target.
Wow is that a PDF of a Microsoft Word document with inline comments written by the judge? I don't think I've ever seen a document in that style in PACER before (linked in the blog post at https://cdn.sparkfun.com/assets/home_page_posts/3/9/7/0/Alta...) .
I think there's a typo in the blog post ("parent" should be "patent" below):
> Do you ever wonder what parent trolls tell their children they do for a job?
I read a story somewhere that claimed that "Captain Planet" had to be edited to feature cartoonishly evil villains, rather than the mundane day-to-day polluters, because they were worried that kids would ask uncomfortable career questions of their parents in sectors like disposable consumer goods, plastics, petrochemical, cigarettes, etc.
I think there's a typo in the blog post ("parent" should be "patent" below):
> Do you ever wonder what parent trolls tell their children they do for a job?
I read a story somewhere that claimed that "Captain Planet" had to be edited to feature cartoonishly evil villains, rather than the mundane day-to-day polluters, because they were worried that kids would ask uncomfortable career questions of their parents in sectors like disposable consumer goods, plastics, petrochemical, cigarettes, etc.
As a child I learned that technological progress takes the form of inventions and comes from intellectual heroes called inventors. Manufacture, distribution, marketing, business, etc. were all just details that would inevitably get worked out by one or another of the sharks in that grubby game. And the sharks would constantly be trying to screw the inventor out of his due. As a child I would have looked at someone who enforces patents for a living as a kind of hero.
Once I reached the tech industry it was a total 180, ideas are worthless, the heroes are the engineers who can scale them and the founders who can make businesses out of them. But patent law didn’t get the memo, it’s still based on my elementary-school worldview.
Once I reached the tech industry it was a total 180, ideas are worthless, the heroes are the engineers who can scale them and the founders who can make businesses out of them. But patent law didn’t get the memo, it’s still based on my elementary-school worldview.
Inventors regularly sign over their inventions to the businesses that they work for, such that the businessmen are able to make business models out of them that the engineers will scale. To be honest, I don't think you know much of how the patent system works to substantiate your comment.
I thought it was clear from my comment that I'm criticizing the viewpoint I received in 4th grade, i.e. I no longer believe in it.
Crucially, the inventors in those hero stories were always lone wolf eccentric garage/basement guys. Corporate R&D labs did not appear.
Crucially, the inventors in those hero stories were always lone wolf eccentric garage/basement guys. Corporate R&D labs did not appear.
Not to mention, inventions occur in manufacturing, distribution, marketing, and business too. Just because someone doesn’t have an understanding of how things work is not a justification to be dismissive.
Parent troll wisdom: No matter what he says, eat the littlest billy goat first. Don't give up the choke point at the bridge. Don't let the enemy onto the hillside behind you.
I always wondered what the moral of that story was supposed to be.
I always wondered what the moral of that story was supposed to be.
Fairy tales and folktales don't necessarily have a moral, which is a distinction from a fable or parable.
Sometimes it was just the ancient version of Squid Game, and people just wanted to hear or tell something entertaining.
Sometimes it was just the ancient version of Squid Game, and people just wanted to hear or tell something entertaining.
I'm only two episode into squid game, but it's an add choice for an example of "just entertainment" since it is clearly a commentary on late stage capitalism.
It's... interesting, in the end. They make some bold choices (which I rather liked, since you don't see choices of that type in American popular media as much), but even as commentary, I'm not sure there's a moral or lesson to come out of it rather than to just provoke thought and to entertain.
Put another way, it says a lot of things, and outlines a lot of problems, but I'm not sure it puts any solutions forth. That's probably a good thing IMO, as any solution presented in a program like that invariably seems trite to me, as it necessarily oversimplifies the problem so the solution proposed can work.
Put another way, it says a lot of things, and outlines a lot of problems, but I'm not sure it puts any solutions forth. That's probably a good thing IMO, as any solution presented in a program like that invariably seems trite to me, as it necessarily oversimplifies the problem so the solution proposed can work.
I didn't see it that way at all but I've seen several people compare it to that and I still fail to see the comparison. The video has no relevance to capitalism at all. It's just a more violent version of very common asian tv variety shows where a bunch of contestants try to climb over obstacles or do random activities to reach the goal. Instead of getting shot though you fall into a pool of goo or water or something though instead and everyone gets a laugh watching the antics of the participants. Combine that additional violence with some heartfelt back story for the characters and you have squid game. It's really quite a simple story.
Keep in mind this is a Korean drama, not a western drama. "Late stage capitalism" is an English language/western world concept, not a universal one. (Even the term "late stage capitalism" implies that capitalism is somehow going to end, but commentators never clearly explain what system they think is better or what should replace it. Capitalism IMO is with us for the rest of humanity.)
Keep in mind this is a Korean drama, not a western drama. "Late stage capitalism" is an English language/western world concept, not a universal one. (Even the term "late stage capitalism" implies that capitalism is somehow going to end, but commentators never clearly explain what system they think is better or what should replace it. Capitalism IMO is with us for the rest of humanity.)
> It's just a more violent version of very common asian tv variety shows
No, it's a version of such shows that you cannot escape from because of financial pressures on your life, despite likely ending in your death. That is the key - even when given a chance to get out, the overwhelming majority of participants embraces the game, because the alternative (being economically destitute, while lying to friends and family to keep up appearances) is seen as worse than death. It's literally "get rich or die trying".
The final revelations, about the game's origins and the fate of previous winners, add further elements of critique of "the system"; and the story arc of the "good son" is a critique of a (Korean) academic process that, while ostensibly promoting talent, ends up producing sharks.
No, it's a version of such shows that you cannot escape from because of financial pressures on your life, despite likely ending in your death. That is the key - even when given a chance to get out, the overwhelming majority of participants embraces the game, because the alternative (being economically destitute, while lying to friends and family to keep up appearances) is seen as worse than death. It's literally "get rich or die trying".
The final revelations, about the game's origins and the fate of previous winners, add further elements of critique of "the system"; and the story arc of the "good son" is a critique of a (Korean) academic process that, while ostensibly promoting talent, ends up producing sharks.
You're directly contradicted by the writers of Squid Game. In fact the text itself directly spells out that it's influenced by South Korea's looming debt crisis and housing inequality. I'm surprised you missed that, frankly.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-16/squid-game-on-netflix...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-16/squid-game-on-netflix...
Your article does not quote or cite the writers or creators of the show though?
From TFA: But for many South Koreans, the homegrown Netflix series is not just riveting entertainment. Behind the violence and horror, it has captured long-held anxieties and brought them to life on screen. It has also sparked a debate in South Korea about the exploding personal debt and widening inequality consuming this nation.
"many South Koreans" might include the creators but I would prefer if they could find a tweet or a Korean interview with the creators to actually be sure.
Good news, I provided that in a reply above. Two of them, in fact.
In the 30 seconds I spent looking for it, I couldn't find the direct interview that I read, but this one was illustrative enough.
But here: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/oct/26/squid-g...
“It’s not profound! It’s very simple! I do believe that the overall global economic order is unequal and that around 90% of the people believe that it’s unfair. During the pandemic, poorer countries can’t get their people vaccinated. They’re contracting viruses on the streets and even dying. So I did try to convey a message about modern capitalism. As I said, it’s not profound.”
And here's another one: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/business/economy/squid-ga...
“The stories and the problems of the characters are extremely personalized but also reflect the problems and realities of Korean society,” Hwang Dong-hyuk, the show’s creator, said in an email. He wrote the script as a film in 2008, when many of these trends had become evident, but overhauled it to reflect new worries, including the impact of the coronavirus. (Minyoung Kim, the head of content for the Asia-Pacific region at Netflix, said the company was in talks with Mr. Hwang about producing a second season.)
But here: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/oct/26/squid-g...
“It’s not profound! It’s very simple! I do believe that the overall global economic order is unequal and that around 90% of the people believe that it’s unfair. During the pandemic, poorer countries can’t get their people vaccinated. They’re contracting viruses on the streets and even dying. So I did try to convey a message about modern capitalism. As I said, it’s not profound.”
And here's another one: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/06/business/economy/squid-ga...
“The stories and the problems of the characters are extremely personalized but also reflect the problems and realities of Korean society,” Hwang Dong-hyuk, the show’s creator, said in an email. He wrote the script as a film in 2008, when many of these trends had become evident, but overhauled it to reflect new worries, including the impact of the coronavirus. (Minyoung Kim, the head of content for the Asia-Pacific region at Netflix, said the company was in talks with Mr. Hwang about producing a second season.)
It might seem like it's going that way at first. I wouldn't say it's a commentary on late-stage capitalism as much as that's just part of the setting.
It's possible to comment on something without overexplaining it using voiceovers and exposition.
It's a recurring theme in Korean media eg Parasite and Snowpiercer.
It's a recurring theme in Korean media eg Parasite and Snowpiercer.
You've picked two films by a single Korean director who is outspoken about his views, which his hardly a good way to show it's a recurring theme across the media in general.
I could pick Atlanta and The Wire and say American media is commonly critical of police. Or turn around and pick CSI and Law & Order and say that American media is commonly supportive of police. It hardly says something about the overall landscape. And thats even picking shows with different directors!
I could pick Atlanta and The Wire and say American media is commonly critical of police. Or turn around and pick CSI and Law & Order and say that American media is commonly supportive of police. It hardly says something about the overall landscape. And thats even picking shows with different directors!
[deleted]
I never quite understood why they didn't just send the big goat first.
Because you don't get to become the big Billy goat by taking all the upfront risk. I've seen many a buck follow this strategy. When a group of 2 or 3 bucks enter a clearing, you'll almost always see the biggest oldest one go last.
Maybe not a strategy, just survivorship bias?
Maybe I don't understand, but I don't think this suggestion is quite coherent.
If the bucks following this stategy are the ones that survived, how is this survivorhsip bias rather than a winning strategy?
If the bucks following this stategy are the ones that survived, how is this survivorhsip bias rather than a winning strategy?
It could be both?
The moral is, you can escape from bullies by offering up your classmates as more attractive targets.
/s
Or maybe it's that it doesn't pay to be the bully, because eventually you try to bully someone bigger than you.
/s
Or maybe it's that it doesn't pay to be the bully, because eventually you try to bully someone bigger than you.
I imagine it's a couple things, these old stories pack in a lot of useful information.
Bridges are dangerous if you're a little kid, you may want to get your older siblings to back you up.
Disdaining small victories leaves you unprepared for the big ones.
There's always someone bigger.
Bridges are dangerous if you're a little kid, you may want to get your older siblings to back you up.
Disdaining small victories leaves you unprepared for the big ones.
There's always someone bigger.
Comment A2 is pure gold
"Commented [A2]: Whoever wrote this sentence might be the same person who writes patents. It would be helpful in the future to write and speak in plain English. You are dealing with an ordinary court, not a patent examiner.
"Commented [A2]: Whoever wrote this sentence might be the same person who writes patents. It would be helpful in the future to write and speak in plain English. You are dealing with an ordinary court, not a patent examiner.
I once spent about four months going through several hundred patents of a competitor, finding a way to do a product that did not infringe. We more or less succeeded, but man it was painful. Had expert legal help (and permission of our corporate lawyers) -- don't go off on your own and read these things.
A few thoughts on patents:
- Don't bother reading anything other than the claims. Ignore everything else (yes, even the diagrams) unless referenced by the claims.
- Yes, they do try to -- and succeed in -- patenting stuff you can pull out of a textbook. One patent was a near cut-and-paste of some stuff on Kalman filters (that one made me pretty mad).
- Any time a patent lawyer makes a reference to a patent's "teachings", punch them in the nose. These things don't teach anyone anything, that's an impolite fiction for a game that's really all about obfuscation. If there was a patent that described how to nail two boards together, you wouldn't walk away from reading that patent with any useful knowledge.
- The very fact that every company in the US will tell you "Please, for the love of Pete, don't go read patents on your own, without permission" again belies that these things are land-grabs that are never designed to advance the state of the art through teaching.
I am not a lawyer. I do not play one on TV.
A few thoughts on patents:
- Don't bother reading anything other than the claims. Ignore everything else (yes, even the diagrams) unless referenced by the claims.
- Yes, they do try to -- and succeed in -- patenting stuff you can pull out of a textbook. One patent was a near cut-and-paste of some stuff on Kalman filters (that one made me pretty mad).
- Any time a patent lawyer makes a reference to a patent's "teachings", punch them in the nose. These things don't teach anyone anything, that's an impolite fiction for a game that's really all about obfuscation. If there was a patent that described how to nail two boards together, you wouldn't walk away from reading that patent with any useful knowledge.
- The very fact that every company in the US will tell you "Please, for the love of Pete, don't go read patents on your own, without permission" again belies that these things are land-grabs that are never designed to advance the state of the art through teaching.
I am not a lawyer. I do not play one on TV.
>The very fact that every company in the US will tell you "Please, for the love of Pete, don't go read patents on your own, without permission"
One reason for the guidance to not read patents is that, at trial, knowingly infringing a patent is much more expensive than unknowingly infringing.
One reason for the guidance to not read patents is that, at trial, knowingly infringing a patent is much more expensive than unknowingly infringing.
That's what the lawyers always tell you. "Out of an abundance of caution" etc. etc. yada yada yada. Always listen to your lawyers :)
Now, for the reality: I never saw this happen. How would they know you looked at their patent? From your server logs? From the PTO's? Do you think they file discovery on your personal computer? (Just don't send an email about their patent or write anything down about it -- THAT they can track.) Very, very few infringement suits go to trial anyway.
I think the real reason the lawyers tell you this is so they won't have to answer your questions. And because you might misinterpret the claims (not at all a hard thing to do).
If your management and lawyers want to, they can get an official opinion from a lawyer that you're not infringing. That's something you can use.
Now, for the reality: I never saw this happen. How would they know you looked at their patent? From your server logs? From the PTO's? Do you think they file discovery on your personal computer? (Just don't send an email about their patent or write anything down about it -- THAT they can track.) Very, very few infringement suits go to trial anyway.
I think the real reason the lawyers tell you this is so they won't have to answer your questions. And because you might misinterpret the claims (not at all a hard thing to do).
If your management and lawyers want to, they can get an official opinion from a lawyer that you're not infringing. That's something you can use.
Yeah, IIRC it's triple damages if you knowingly infringe.
I absolutely _love_ chances to read or listen in on any instance where a judge provides feedback in the US legal system. For reasons I do not understand, there seems to be a strong culture among judges of constantly dishing out statements which somehow always feel like "sick burns". The few encounters with IRL judges I've had also had this quality, where the judge would be totally willing to frame people really harshly in their questions, or just outright denounce someone. If anyone has any insight into this (I bet there are some good books about "legal culture and judge culture" that'd be real interesting) please do chime in!
You might enjoy this series of interviews with Supreme Court justices on writing style in _The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing_ vol 13:
https://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/garner-transcripts-1.pd...
The interviews go beyond writing style into broader rhetoric, as well as dislikes and pet-peeves.
https://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/garner-transcripts-1.pd...
The interviews go beyond writing style into broader rhetoric, as well as dislikes and pet-peeves.
So, some of the work I did for my previous employer was deemed patentable. I wrote up technical but still comprehensible documents describing each distinct invention for the legal/IPR folks. Months later, I was notified that patent applications have been filed.
The language in them is so horribly convoluted that I, the supposed inventor can't make any sense of them. Hell, it took me a while to even figure out which invention maps to which application.
The language in them is so horribly convoluted that I, the supposed inventor can't make any sense of them. Hell, it took me a while to even figure out which invention maps to which application.
cartoonishly evil villains
Or the kids themselves. Though it would have been pretty hilarious if Captain Planet turned to the "camera" and told the kids honestly: "The toys you play with, including this show's action-figures, were made using the ancient decomposed remains of countless dead plants and animals, in a process every bit as bad as what you see in this show. And recycling isn't going to solve this problem."
Or the kids themselves. Though it would have been pretty hilarious if Captain Planet turned to the "camera" and told the kids honestly: "The toys you play with, including this show's action-figures, were made using the ancient decomposed remains of countless dead plants and animals, in a process every bit as bad as what you see in this show. And recycling isn't going to solve this problem."
Nah, I think they genuinely mean "trolls" who happen to be parents and have to explain to their kids what they do for a living.
This document is actually way more interesting with the comments, kind of an inside look into the legal process
This document is like HN in general. TLDR; the main doc and just read the comments. ;-)
If you can find a link to that Captain Planet story I’d like to read it. It sounds totally plausible.
I think this is it
https://grist.org/culture/captain-planet-planeteers-real-sto...
>That family edutainment goal affected a lot of the show’s writing. Pyle didn’t want kids to see their family members as evil, ecologically speaking. “That’s one of the reasons we made the bad guys and their plans so ridiculous,” she explained, “We tried to point the finger at behaviors rather than industries. That way, no child would go home and say, ‘Oh, daddy, you’re in a blah blah business.’ It would be horrible for some child to see their family member as a Captain Planet villain.”
https://grist.org/culture/captain-planet-planeteers-real-sto...
>That family edutainment goal affected a lot of the show’s writing. Pyle didn’t want kids to see their family members as evil, ecologically speaking. “That’s one of the reasons we made the bad guys and their plans so ridiculous,” she explained, “We tried to point the finger at behaviors rather than industries. That way, no child would go home and say, ‘Oh, daddy, you’re in a blah blah business.’ It would be horrible for some child to see their family member as a Captain Planet villain.”
I do not see why it would be terrible for a kid to see the ramifications of their future due to their current lifestyle of a 2k+ sq ft detached single family house with an SUV and pickup truck and flights to Disney world as a villain.
Good goooood... and then we have left them most vulnerable and depressed and upset the foundation of the family, we will cut to commercials rife with aspirational advertising!
Yes, my student! Feel the power of the dark side!
Yes, my student! Feel the power of the dark side!
Perhaps the child pressures the parent to change careers. Perhaps the parent pressures the child to “stop watching that stupid show” and Captain Planet’s audience shrinks. I know which one I’d bet on.
Pretty much exactly this.
My kids bring things up sometimes. We have a discussion about them, about our role in society, etc. But a good portion of the time the discussion becomes a lesson in critical thinking and not taking over-simplified idealistic pleas from randos on the Internet at face value.
My kids bring things up sometimes. We have a discussion about them, about our role in society, etc. But a good portion of the time the discussion becomes a lesson in critical thinking and not taking over-simplified idealistic pleas from randos on the Internet at face value.
bad idea to put adult burdens of conscience and politic on children -- let them be children for a while
You're not putting that on the child, you're putting it on the parent. The children will put pressure on them without being hurt in the process. I've seen similar things with smoking - children are taught smoking is very dangerous and they start asking their parents why they smoke. "Are you going to get lung cancer too, dad? Please quit!" I know of several cases where the parents quit smoking in part because of their children. The children felt really proud of themselves, which is great.
I mean, the child is still the agent of change in that scenario— and it's perfectly possible for it to go the other way too, where no change occurs and the parent and child end up resenting each other over it.
I don't know if I'm necessarily making a value judgment either way here, but I don't think "get to them through their young kids" should be considered a general-purpose strategy for effecting societal change... and fear of this kind of thing is exactly what breeds mistrust in public education, parents pulling their kids out of sex ed, etc etc.
I don't know if I'm necessarily making a value judgment either way here, but I don't think "get to them through their young kids" should be considered a general-purpose strategy for effecting societal change... and fear of this kind of thing is exactly what breeds mistrust in public education, parents pulling their kids out of sex ed, etc etc.
It's true, but the opposite strategy - sugarcoat the truth to avoid raising uncomfortable questions about the status quo - also breeds mistrust in education and institutions. All we can really try to do is present our best view of the truth, with all the uncertainties around that. Does smoking cause lung cancer? That certainly appears to be where the weight of evidence sits, and it would be a lie of omission to avoid saying so. Should you quit smoking? That's up to you.
That's true. The alternative is a bland world of platitudes where no one ever says anything and all the conflicts are fully made up (as in the case of over-the-top villains for a cartoon purportedly about being good stewards of the environment).
> "Are you going to get lung cancer too, dad? Please quit!"
This would definitely have a negative impact on a child growing up- feeling like I had to worry about my parents' health when I was ~12 definitely did.
This would definitely have a negative impact on a child growing up- feeling like I had to worry about my parents' health when I was ~12 definitely did.
[deleted]
It's terrible if your goal is to sell a TV show to kids, whose viewing is controlled by their parents.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> I read a story somewhere that claimed that "Captain Planet" had to be edited to feature cartoonishly evil villains, rather than the mundane day-to-day polluters, because they were worried that kids would ask uncomfortable career questions of their parents in sectors like disposable consumer goods, plastics, petrochemical, cigarettes, etc.
maybe here: https://grist.org/culture/captain-planet-planeteers-real-sto...
maybe here: https://grist.org/culture/captain-planet-planeteers-real-sto...
I think parent troll is a play on words. Patent trolls with children are parent trolls.
Some folks are just not compatible with a cooperative society.
> Lesson #3) Anyone can sign up for Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) to search and retrieve your own legal documents [...] getting them yourself at $0.10 a page.
It sounds cheap, but one bad search and you may be fetching 100s of pages (IIRC, the number of pages returned by your search is what counts - https://pacer.uscourts.gov/pacer-pricing-how-fees-work).
If you do so, you can also use RECAP: https://free.law/recap. It's like the internet archive for PACER documents.
It's a browser extension that helps create a crowdsourced archive of the PACER content. You can then search that archive (this time for free) in https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/
For stuff not on RECAP, then PACER can be used, and fee is waived if less than $30 that quarter according to https://free.law/pacer-facts
It sounds cheap, but one bad search and you may be fetching 100s of pages (IIRC, the number of pages returned by your search is what counts - https://pacer.uscourts.gov/pacer-pricing-how-fees-work).
If you do so, you can also use RECAP: https://free.law/recap. It's like the internet archive for PACER documents.
It's a browser extension that helps create a crowdsourced archive of the PACER content. You can then search that archive (this time for free) in https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/
For stuff not on RECAP, then PACER can be used, and fee is waived if less than $30 that quarter according to https://free.law/pacer-facts
Hear, hear on RECAP.
It is surprisingly complete. See [1] for the Theranos trial.
I think most of the lawyers at Big Law must have the Chrome extension. A high percentage of the docs you would want are on there.
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7185174/united-states-v...
It is surprisingly complete. See [1] for the Theranos trial.
I think most of the lawyers at Big Law must have the Chrome extension. A high percentage of the docs you would want are on there.
[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7185174/united-states-v...
It's not the biglaw attorneys, its the reporters
FYI RECAP means you're technically in violation of PACER's terms of use which prohibit redistribution or publishing.
Violating terms laid forth by the federal court system ends (for wealthy internet tech celebrities) in the EFF picking up your legal tab and the FBI saying "okay FINE, just don't do that again."
For you and me, it ends in tens of thousands in legal costs and at best probation terms that likely substantially interfere with your ability to make a living.
Violating terms laid forth by the federal court system ends (for wealthy internet tech celebrities) in the EFF picking up your legal tab and the FBI saying "okay FINE, just don't do that again."
For you and me, it ends in tens of thousands in legal costs and at best probation terms that likely substantially interfere with your ability to make a living.
Can you actually point to a sentence in the terms of use which say that? I see nothing like that on the PACER website.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACER_(law)#Costs,_revenues_an...
> Some courts such as the District Court for the District of Massachusetts have explicitly stated that "fee exempt PACER users must refrain from the use of RECAP,"[13]
I'm not sure if this is binding, or applies to fee-paying users.
> Some courts such as the District Court for the District of Massachusetts have explicitly stated that "fee exempt PACER users must refrain from the use of RECAP,"[13]
I'm not sure if this is binding, or applies to fee-paying users.
Generalia specialibus non derogant so yeah, the warning was specifically for fee-exempt (like if a judge gives you research waiver from the $.10 fee because you're indigent, pro se etc.) users.
Ummm...what are you talking about? You just made that up.
https://free.law/recap/faq
Is sharing court documents a violation of copyright law?
The court-created documents provided by PACER are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. The question is a little bit more complicated for documents filed by third parties, so we asked a prominent legal scholar about it. He told us that such documents may be under copyright, but he thought redistributing copyrighted court documents was legal under copyright's fair use doctrine. However, there is very little case law in this area (some examples are here and here), so it's impossible to be sure. We certainly believe citizens ought to have the freedom to share public court documents, and we hope RECAP users will help to establish that precedent.
The PACER "policies and procedures" prohibit "any attempt to collect data from PACER in a manner which avoids billing." Is this what RECAP is designed to do?
Absolutely not. PACER charges users for the documents they download from PACER. RECAP users pay for every document they download from PACER, just like any other user. RECAP simply gives users a second option: to easily share documents directly with one another, as they're permitted to do under copyright law. When a user downloads a RECAP document, the document comes directly from our server; the process imposes no additional load on PACER's web servers.
https://free.law/recap/faq
Is sharing court documents a violation of copyright law?
The court-created documents provided by PACER are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. The question is a little bit more complicated for documents filed by third parties, so we asked a prominent legal scholar about it. He told us that such documents may be under copyright, but he thought redistributing copyrighted court documents was legal under copyright's fair use doctrine. However, there is very little case law in this area (some examples are here and here), so it's impossible to be sure. We certainly believe citizens ought to have the freedom to share public court documents, and we hope RECAP users will help to establish that precedent.
The PACER "policies and procedures" prohibit "any attempt to collect data from PACER in a manner which avoids billing." Is this what RECAP is designed to do?
Absolutely not. PACER charges users for the documents they download from PACER. RECAP users pay for every document they download from PACER, just like any other user. RECAP simply gives users a second option: to easily share documents directly with one another, as they're permitted to do under copyright law. When a user downloads a RECAP document, the document comes directly from our server; the process imposes no additional load on PACER's web servers.
This very much assumes the person is within US jurisdiction, correct? What would happen if the archive is based in Russia or some similar country that doesn't care about US jurisdiction?
RECAP, what an amazing name. Love it.
[deleted]
> Every time a company settles it just funds the trolls to wreak more havoc. This is especially true for companies larger than $100 million in revenue. I’m looking at you Texas Instruments, VIA Technologies, Renesas, ASUS, Caterpillar, Nuvision International, and Netgear, just to name a few of the companies that have dealt with Jason Nguyen’s Altair Logix. When you roll over and pay the trolls it hurts smaller companies terribly.
I wonder if those companies consider this a "feature"?
I wonder if those companies consider this a "feature"?
That was my first thought too. In this way, it serves a similar purpose to overly strict regulation, which is also something smaller companies have a much harder time dealing with than larger ones (and encouraging regulation of a specific area is a well known tactic of larger companies to raise the bar of entry to the market).
That's not to say all regulation is bad, just that like most things that have beneficial ways to be used, it can be abused by some to negative effect also.
That's not to say all regulation is bad, just that like most things that have beneficial ways to be used, it can be abused by some to negative effect also.
The company I work for also had a patent troll, who got settled by much bigger companies in the trolls favor.
They found a previous concept that would invalidate their expensive patent(s).
They tried to settle with 0€. The lawyer of HQ didn't agree and changed it so they had to pay 1 CAD.
Just because they could.
Ps. It was accepted ofc.
They found a previous concept that would invalidate their expensive patent(s).
They tried to settle with 0€. The lawyer of HQ didn't agree and changed it so they had to pay 1 CAD.
Just because they could.
Ps. It was accepted ofc.
$1 is probably a peppercorn payment[1]. A contract for 0€ may well fail to be a valid contract due to a lack of consideration - both sides must offer something of value to the other for a contract to be binding.
It's possible that the rest of the settlement would provide valid consideration, but a nominal payment removes any doubt from the situation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_(legal)
It's possible that the rest of the settlement would provide valid consideration, but a nominal payment removes any doubt from the situation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_(legal)
[deleted]
Peppercorn payments don't actually happen in the real world. Consideration is never an issue in actual contract litigation and in this case, settling something in exchange for any other benefit (no countersuit, etc) would suffice as consideration.
I can report that they do actually happen in the real world. I've signed two contracts in the past year that had consideration of $1 written into them (and actually made the $1 payment). Are they necessary? I have no idea, but real lawyers wrote the contracts and apparently thought it was good to have that in there.
There is also a Feynman anecdote about this (wherein he demanded the dollar that they neglected to pay him):
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7277192-anyway-smith-told-m...
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7277192-anyway-smith-told-m...
Clearly those real lawyers were just trying to milk you for their % contingency fee on that $1.
I have a land lease that is literally a peppercorn per year in lease fee.
Literally? You mean you have to buy a bag of peppercorns, and hand over one of them?
If whoever-it-is actually demands their peppercorn, yes.
I offered to come by the leaser's office and hand over enough peppercorns to cover the entire lease period. They declined.
Sure, there are plenty of bad attorneys.
If the settlement were 0€, it could have been paid with a zero euro bank note: https://www.banknoteworld.com/zero-euro/
But then they would be settling for at least 1.72€!
Am I understanding correctly that you (your company) found prior art and chose to settle instead of presenting it in court and killing the patent? Any idea why? Isn't there some law that automatically awards you legal fees in the case of a frivolous lawsuit?
You don't present it "to court" because that might be decided by a jury of unsophisticated people. You file an Inter Partes Review, which goes to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and is cheaper (note I didn't say "cheap").
The U.S. doesn't have a "loser pays" model like other countries. You can file for attorney's fees, but the barriers are higher.
The U.S. doesn't have a "loser pays" model like other countries. You can file for attorney's fees, but the barriers are higher.
It's called an invalidity counterclaim.
??? what are you disputing here? IPRs, or defending against an infringement suit, or what?
Doesn't look like a dispute? I think they were trying to supply you with a phrase that slipped your mind.
the question is the antecedent basis of "it"
You don't need to get an IPR, you just make an invalidity counterclaim. IPRs may or may not be desirable for a number of reasons.
TIL. We're talking about US law, right?
I've never heard the term "invalidity counterclaim" and I was in Google Patent Litigation where suits come in constantly. IPRs were pretty standard. Maybe the lawyers did use it and I just never heard it.
If something was going to trial, then "invalidity" was one of the possible defenses, as was "non-infringement."
Who are you making this claim TO? The court? The PTO?
I've never heard the term "invalidity counterclaim" and I was in Google Patent Litigation where suits come in constantly. IPRs were pretty standard. Maybe the lawyers did use it and I just never heard it.
If something was going to trial, then "invalidity" was one of the possible defenses, as was "non-infringement."
Who are you making this claim TO? The court? The PTO?
Finding prior art to invalidate a patent doesn't make the plaintiff's lawsuit frivolous, so they probably wouldn't be awarded atty's fees. If the court didn't invalidate the patent, then you are now stuck in a serious litigation where the plaintiff has no reason to settle.
I can ask the lawyer, if you want and if you can wait a day ( or more) to see the reply.
It happened during a very busy time for me and i wasn't involved, since it was a story that was shared during the weekly "covid update" that shares all the company news.
It could be that they also filed a counter lawsuit to invalidate it.
I think the main point was to defend successfully and not to attack/piss some big trolls off.
It happened during a very busy time for me and i wasn't involved, since it was a story that was shared during the weekly "covid update" that shares all the company news.
It could be that they also filed a counter lawsuit to invalidate it.
I think the main point was to defend successfully and not to attack/piss some big trolls off.
A nominal fee is pretty common in contracts, it tends to be more binding than zero costs (because an important part of contract law is that both sides benefit from the contract).
Ugly. So it's just a "protection fee" in a sense. Wouldn't surprise me if that's true.
You just won't find it written down anywhere.
You just won't find it written down anywhere.
A big company like TI is probably on both sides of these things, all the time, and it all washes out for them. In fact, I think you could divide the "big" companies from the "small" ones -- in this context -- not by revenue -- but by whether or not they are pursuing anyone else on patents.
Hooray for him.
Patent trolls have a business model, which he's disrupted:
1) buy a patent, the broader and better-tested the better
2) start threatening the easy marks; the ones who roll over and write you a check right away.
4) maybe actually go to trial with a very big target, one that'll get dinged for a 9-figure judgment if the troll wins. In the Eastern District of Texas, juries tend to do that.
Researching the validity of a patent does not require $400/hour attorneys. Anyone with a basic knowledge of patent law and computer science can do it. (And no, I'm not advertising for myself. I'm retired.) Do you think those expensive attorneys do it themselves? It is to laugh -- they assign it to a junior who knows technology.
Patent trolls have a business model, which he's disrupted:
1) buy a patent, the broader and better-tested the better
2) start threatening the easy marks; the ones who roll over and write you a check right away.
Their trick is to ask for a settlement small enough to say "hey, it'll cost you more than that for attorney's fees!"
4) maybe actually go to trial with a very big target, one that'll get dinged for a 9-figure judgment if the troll wins. In the Eastern District of Texas, juries tend to do that.
Researching the validity of a patent does not require $400/hour attorneys. Anyone with a basic knowledge of patent law and computer science can do it. (And no, I'm not advertising for myself. I'm retired.) Do you think those expensive attorneys do it themselves? It is to laugh -- they assign it to a junior who knows technology.
First year associates at the law firm I use charge over $500/hr. Senior lawyers/partner cost well over $1,200/hour in 2021 at many of the largest / most successful firms now.
OK, you don't need any of those. Certainly you need lawyers to actually write the IPR & conduct it, but nothing starts until someone finds that killer prior art.
I find the profession prior art search firms; global, CPA, Cardinal, Nordic, etc. are pretty garbage. I always use one for my cases, but I, the attorney actually writing the IPR/invalidity contentions, have generally found the best art. The search firms get hung up on superficial similarities. So I wouldn't prevent your attorneys from doing some digging on their own.
But I wholeheartedly agree that you shouldn't start down the IPR road before you find the killer art (for all potential claims). I've seen to many instances of people rushing to file an IPR and then later finding better art.
But I wholeheartedly agree that you shouldn't start down the IPR road before you find the killer art (for all potential claims). I've seen to many instances of people rushing to file an IPR and then later finding better art.
I feel that's the case in many professions like plumber or car repair that people are reluctant or unable to DYI, whose services aren't going to be needed often, but that are accompanied by acute pain when they're needed. That tends to make people cost insensitive because they need pain relief, they have few points of comparison, and don't anticipate needing the same service again soon.
Sorry to say, but I'm not sure the IP law profession is different... I probably have worked with about a dozen attorneys hired by my employer to file patents on my behalf, and there were two lawyers that stood out a lot. They understood the inventions, what we claimed to set them apart from prior art, and produced filings that were relatively brief and to the point. The rest of them didn't really get the stuff, sent us draft filings that made me cringe because they were shallow copy-paste jobs, etc. If you're one of the better lawyers out there, I hope your clients are rewarding you appropriately for it!
Sorry to say, but I'm not sure the IP law profession is different... I probably have worked with about a dozen attorneys hired by my employer to file patents on my behalf, and there were two lawyers that stood out a lot. They understood the inventions, what we claimed to set them apart from prior art, and produced filings that were relatively brief and to the point. The rest of them didn't really get the stuff, sent us draft filings that made me cringe because they were shallow copy-paste jobs, etc. If you're one of the better lawyers out there, I hope your clients are rewarding you appropriately for it!
Lawyers use very short abbreviations for everything. I love that about them. (This does relate to what you said; be patient!)
"pros" = "patent prosecution" that's what you're talking about. Writing the patent & getting it through the PTO.
"lit" - "litigation" A lit lawyer is quite different from a pros. They can switch back & forth, but it's a big switch.
"crim" - "criminal". You hear this one on the TV series "Billions" ("I want to be the head of Crim!")
"3L" - a third-year law student
Probably a lot of others I don't know.
One of the pros lawyers that Oracle used was a total copy-paste douchebag, like you said. At Packeteer we had an awesome guy, whom I brought in once a quarter to brainstorm our 2-3 filings that quarter (we did not have a big budget). I don't think he's doing pros anymore; it gets repetitive.
Most big companies want to use big law firms, regardless of whether their people are any good. As an independent lawyer you have to be really good to compete for that business.
"pros" = "patent prosecution" that's what you're talking about. Writing the patent & getting it through the PTO.
"lit" - "litigation" A lit lawyer is quite different from a pros. They can switch back & forth, but it's a big switch.
"crim" - "criminal". You hear this one on the TV series "Billions" ("I want to be the head of Crim!")
"3L" - a third-year law student
Probably a lot of others I don't know.
One of the pros lawyers that Oracle used was a total copy-paste douchebag, like you said. At Packeteer we had an awesome guy, whom I brought in once a quarter to brainstorm our 2-3 filings that quarter (we did not have a big budget). I don't think he's doing pros anymore; it gets repetitive.
Most big companies want to use big law firms, regardless of whether their people are any good. As an independent lawyer you have to be really good to compete for that business.
I wonder how many attorneys have a good understanding of prior art for patents in computing.
Judges, juries, and the patent office don't seem to.
And as Sparkfun points out, this patent is nonsense and should not have been granted in the first place.
Judges, juries, and the patent office don't seem to.
And as Sparkfun points out, this patent is nonsense and should not have been granted in the first place.
I wrote a post about the search firms, then I saw this, sorry.
Yeah, a lot of the firms are garbage, but I remember a couple being pretty decent.
Yeah, a lot of the firms are garbage, but I remember a couple being pretty decent.
More like they have shakedown and protection racket model they call "business". Just highlights how messed up the legal system is, if someone has to do so much work to disrupt racketeers.
Junior attys at BigLaw firms are billed at the $400/hr rate...
Anti-Patent troll model:
Talk to EFF, start a go-fund-me campaigns, wild up the public opinions,
What's the deal with buying an expired patent? Doesn't expired mean the patent is not valid?
I came here to ask the same question. It's he sitting for infringement that happened whale the patent was active? If so, don't you have a duty to sue in a "timely manner"?
Had anyone ever heard of businesses forming a mutual defense bloc? Every member could contribute to a pool of resources that gets tapped to go to the mat with trolls that sue a member.
Sounds like troll insurance now that I read what I just wrote...
Sounds like troll insurance now that I read what I just wrote...
In the linked first post, they show a letter they received about this patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9729658
Can't even fathom what the patent is saying. Sounds like they have tried patenting the web.
Can't even fathom what the patent is saying. Sounds like they have tried patenting the web.
So, I've not read much of this kind of stuff before. Can someone tell me if the following response is just a standard legal way of talking:
Is it better to deny some unknown thing in case you miss it, than to not respond to it in a legal document? if so, why is that?
Is there some other reason for it?
43. For example, US Patent No. 5,592,405 (Assignee Texas Instruments) discloses:
“There is thus a need in the art for a system which handles multi-processors having multi-memories
such that the address space from all of the memories is available to one or more processors
concurrently[.]” 2:5-9.
Answer: Altair Logix does not dispute the quoted language comes from U.S. Patent
No. 5,592,405 to the extent it is quoted correctly. Altair denies the remaining allegations in
paragraph 43.
Is it better to deny some unknown thing in case you miss it, than to not respond to it in a legal document? if so, why is that?
Is there some other reason for it?
It's weird, but standard. These exchanges are a formal way of fleshing out what the parties do and do not dispute. Both sides limit what the agree to as much as they can with a straight face, and everything is qualified as much as possible to make it hard to pin you down on something later, after you've learned more about your and their case, e.g., they might disagree that TI is the assignee, or that the language is properly part of the patent b/c it was amended during prosecution or by a certificate of correction.
They accept that the text comes from the US patent, while not accepting what the text states. It's like two people arguing, one going "The professor yesterday said X is true" and the other replying "Yes, indeed he said that yesterday, but that doesn't mean X is actually true".
They are denying the claims in the patent... that there is a need for blah blah blah.
Source: I litigate patents
Source: I litigate patents
Any way to recover the legal fees for something like this?
This is sort of a tragedy-of-the-commons situation. Very few people want to stand up and be counted (Sparkfun aside), yet it's the few who do who keep the bottom feeders[0] in check.
[0] I've been advised by lawyers to just pay them off, as it's "cheaper than dealing with the bottom feeders". Some things matter more than money, and on the few occasions I've pushed it to the wire the chancers have slunk away. It's still expensive though - and maybe only small companies can do it, because for big companies it would be internally expensive/potentially ruinous/worries the C suite it might affect the share price.
[0] I've been advised by lawyers to just pay them off, as it's "cheaper than dealing with the bottom feeders". Some things matter more than money, and on the few occasions I've pushed it to the wire the chancers have slunk away. It's still expensive though - and maybe only small companies can do it, because for big companies it would be internally expensive/potentially ruinous/worries the C suite it might affect the share price.
Go full scorched earth, every time. If possible, file complaints with their bar association. Work to get their licenses to practice law revoked. Form class action suits. Do whatever it takes, because they won't be the last.
I've ordered a ton of crap from SparkFun, and to help out as a thank you, I'll be ordering a huge batch of RPIs from them when they come back in stock.
> Use your settlements budgets to fight because the rest of us don’t have settlement budgets.
That's one of the reasons why some companies will settle instead of litigate - it's a cheap way to kill your competition before it threatens you while, at the same time, not raising any eyebrows about anti-competitive practices.
That's one of the reasons why some companies will settle instead of litigate - it's a cheap way to kill your competition before it threatens you while, at the same time, not raising any eyebrows about anti-competitive practices.
One aspect of this defense was failure to mark: A previous owner of the patent produced processors covered by the patent but did not mark them as such.
It turns out that systematically not marking your patent on your products invalidates claims for infringement unless it occurred after the owner notified future infringers of the violation.
The striking thing about this for a patent troll is (if I understand this correctly) that it's easier to shake companies down if your patent has never been used to ship anything.
That seems odd.
It turns out that systematically not marking your patent on your products invalidates claims for infringement unless it occurred after the owner notified future infringers of the violation.
The striking thing about this for a patent troll is (if I understand this correctly) that it's easier to shake companies down if your patent has never been used to ship anything.
That seems odd.
> In this case, Jason, smelling potential money, purchased an expired patent ‘434 from Huawei and then formed a shell company to start suing people.
What's going on with suing people under an expired patent?
Is there actually some legal ground here -- like can you sue them for their historical violation before it expired or something?
What's going on with suing people under an expired patent?
Is there actually some legal ground here -- like can you sue them for their historical violation before it expired or something?
"expired" doesn't mean you can't sue for infringement. For six years (someone check me on this), you can sue for infringements that happened while the patent was unexpired.
I seem to recall that you have to show intent to commercialize a patent in order to enforce it. Is that a thing, or just a bit of urban folklore that I picked up somewhere?
IANAL but I don't think that's true.
A patent doesn't allow you to practice an invention; it allows you to exclude others from practicing it.
A patent doesn't allow you to practice an invention; it allows you to exclude others from practicing it.
If I understand correctly not applicable here (patent expired after max duration of 20 years), but one facet of this is that in some cases you can buy a patent that is expired because the owner decided it wasn't worth to continue pay the extension fees and un-expire it by paying the fees retroactively.
I find it super bizarre that Huawei would sell expired patents. Is it really worth it?
Are you asking if it's worth it to them to sell something that is worthless to them?
The only problem I see about this post is that asking big companies to fight against trolls otherwise it hurts small companies.
While no one would legally admit that and putting aside morals, isn't it what big companies want anyway?
While no one would legally admit that and putting aside morals, isn't it what big companies want anyway?
It would be great if VCs created funds / departments to fight trolls attacking their portfolio. I understand that there are many issues with this model. But it might just work. Especially for accelerators like YC. I think word would get around quickly to "not touch YC companies" and the expense would go to zero. It would also be easy for YC to decide what is a troll and what is legit.
The problem is that even if VCs hate patent trolls when directly affected by them, they don’t actually hate patents, and in fact try to make their portfolio companies patent everything under the sun.
[deleted]
For every instance that results in a win against a patent troll, there are many more instances where people just pay - you just don't hear about them. More recently the portfolio of companies I am a part of has seen an uptick in demands, and I have to assume that this is driven by a feedback loop that's producing good outcomes for trolls.
From the article, it sounds like the patent was expired when the current owner purchased it. How does a suit like that even make it to court? Would the owner be able to sue for violations from before it expired?
If you're interest in this subject, I recommend Austin Meyer's documentary The Patent Scam (https://www.thepatentscam.com/).
* Austin Meyer is the creator of X-Plane / Laminar Research.
* Austin Meyer is the creator of X-Plane / Laminar Research.
Who's this Jason Nguyen? Should it be time to doxx him??
Question: Are you considered a patent troll if you are an individual that was granted a patent but don't want to go through the hassle of manufacturing and customer support, etc?
If a patent troll is only someone that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value as Wikipedia's article claim, perhaps the justice system is broken?
If a patent troll is only someone that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value as Wikipedia's article claim, perhaps the justice system is broken?
This seems like it is against the spirit of the patent system, and supporting it would be just as broken. I can get behind the thought of someone coming up with an innovative idea, patenting it, and then selling that idea for a royalty... but someone coming up with an innovative idea and just sitting on it, while stifling other people's similar intuition?
That's certainly not doing anything good for the world. It's just lining the pocket books of the idle thinker.
That's certainly not doing anything good for the world. It's just lining the pocket books of the idle thinker.
I wonder how much it costed for the patent troll?
One thing I forgot to mention about searching for prior art, kinda important, too:
Do a web search for "prior art search." There are companies that do it for you, at costs that are... well, less than $500/hour. It's a flat fee.
When I was at Google we tried a whole bunch of them on the same patent, so we could compare them. There were a few that were quite good. Unfortunately I can't remember their names, but they're probably different now anyway.
So that's your gutsy opening conversation with Mr. Troll: "Hey, our search firm found some prior art that invalidates your patent. [Do NOT show it to him.] We're going to IPR you with it."
They might bluff you, laugh at your naivete, and say "We know all about that prior art; it's no good." If you have a lawyer, which you should, let him or her handle all this. You want the threat of an IPR to sound credible.
Do a web search for "prior art search." There are companies that do it for you, at costs that are... well, less than $500/hour. It's a flat fee.
When I was at Google we tried a whole bunch of them on the same patent, so we could compare them. There were a few that were quite good. Unfortunately I can't remember their names, but they're probably different now anyway.
So that's your gutsy opening conversation with Mr. Troll: "Hey, our search firm found some prior art that invalidates your patent. [Do NOT show it to him.] We're going to IPR you with it."
They might bluff you, laugh at your naivete, and say "We know all about that prior art; it's no good." If you have a lawyer, which you should, let him or her handle all this. You want the threat of an IPR to sound credible.
Can a billionaire please step up and fund all anti-trolling defense? Where’s Peter Thiel when you need him?
As others have said, there are more cost effective options than just getting your attorney to do a patent search for you. There are definitely plenty of companies that will do it for you for far less. But the quality is... variable, to say the least.
As a point of shameless self-promotion, I'm the founder of a company seeking to improve the patent system, starting with prior art search [1][2]. We're not one of those companies that will do it for you for less. Instead, we empower you to do it yourself, then have your attorney go deeper if needed. The idea being that you don't need to be a patent expert or lawyer to do it; anyone with knowledge of their technical area can search effectively. Plus we've got some collaboration features so when you're ready to hand off to your $500/hr attorney, you can. And not just hand off -- collaborate.
If a patent troll is shaking you down, reach out to us and we'll do you a generous deal, no strings attached. We very much do not like patent trolls.
[1] https://www.amplified.ai/
[2] https://www.amplified.ai/en/blog/22062020/introducing-amplif...
As a point of shameless self-promotion, I'm the founder of a company seeking to improve the patent system, starting with prior art search [1][2]. We're not one of those companies that will do it for you for less. Instead, we empower you to do it yourself, then have your attorney go deeper if needed. The idea being that you don't need to be a patent expert or lawyer to do it; anyone with knowledge of their technical area can search effectively. Plus we've got some collaboration features so when you're ready to hand off to your $500/hr attorney, you can. And not just hand off -- collaborate.
If a patent troll is shaking you down, reach out to us and we'll do you a generous deal, no strings attached. We very much do not like patent trolls.
[1] https://www.amplified.ai/
[2] https://www.amplified.ai/en/blog/22062020/introducing-amplif...
Seems you are coming from a good place, but IMO there is no fixing the system, patents are a bad idea.
They cause price distortions for consumers by creating state-sanctioned monopolies. Monopolies are a type of market failure and do a great deal of harm. The commonly cited goal of giving monopolies to little inventors and helping the underdog is not a good justification; it doesn't create any value for the user/consumer and ensures they will have fewer choices in the marketplace.
Don't fool yourself, it's not patent trolls that are the problem, it's the whole system. The only innovation I want to see in patents is a huge worldwide lobbying operation to abolish them and make sure everyone knows how detrimental they are to consumer choice.
They cause price distortions for consumers by creating state-sanctioned monopolies. Monopolies are a type of market failure and do a great deal of harm. The commonly cited goal of giving monopolies to little inventors and helping the underdog is not a good justification; it doesn't create any value for the user/consumer and ensures they will have fewer choices in the marketplace.
Don't fool yourself, it's not patent trolls that are the problem, it's the whole system. The only innovation I want to see in patents is a huge worldwide lobbying operation to abolish them and make sure everyone knows how detrimental they are to consumer choice.
> The commonly cited goal of giving monopolies to little inventors and helping the underdog is not a good justification; it doesn't create any value for the user/consumer and ensures they will have fewer choices in the marketplace.
The more common argument I hear is: Why would a company invest resources into research if there was no way to prevent a competitor from copying the result on day 1 of you selling a product?
The more common argument I hear is: Why would a company invest resources into research if there was no way to prevent a competitor from copying the result on day 1 of you selling a product?
This doesn't really apply to software; how many features have the various social networks added that are copies of each other?
Conversely, the success of the web is entirely dependent on not hitting patent walls. We've all seen the problems of app stores with arbitrary rules and 30% taxes; if there had been a patent on, say "using images in a web browser", how much money would the holder have extracted and how many arbitrary rules would we have had to deal with?
(This nearly happened with GIF)
Conversely, the success of the web is entirely dependent on not hitting patent walls. We've all seen the problems of app stores with arbitrary rules and 30% taxes; if there had been a patent on, say "using images in a web browser", how much money would the holder have extracted and how many arbitrary rules would we have had to deal with?
(This nearly happened with GIF)
Yup we're in agreement here. For software I agree that there is rarely if ever a point to have patents. That doesn't really counter my point above nor does it mean all patents are bad.
IMO, this belief is not anchored in reality. What really happens is that no one cares about your idea and most people don't get it until you prove them that it really works. By then, you have the resources and the momentum. No one just starts investing time and money in something they don't actively think about themselves.
My response to that is, why would a company invest in research if a patent troll could come along and put them out of business on day one?
Patent trolls rarely kill a company. The want to settle pre-trial so they usually want some low (relatively speaking) $$$ amount. The gains from patented and protected research still far outweigh the risk of potentially paying a patent troll a few 100k.
True, I should have put better. Maybe, 'Why would a company invest in research if a patent troll could come along and extort money from them from day one?'
Because they can make a great deal of money by making something that people want and competing with others for market share.
If your business cannot survive without a state enforced monopoly, it's a business that can't support itself and should not exist.
People often point to drug development to illustrate your point about the necessity of patents, but how about a world in which drug development is public and funded by government as well as industry participants and a "drug company" becomes more of a "drug manufacturer" making generics. Lower profits, but consumers benefit from more selection, and I would argue the science of drug discovery would move faster because it could focus on discovery more than legal bullshit. If your interest in medicine is literally only money, maybe you should try something else other than medicine. Medical innovation did not start with patents.
If your business cannot survive without a state enforced monopoly, it's a business that can't support itself and should not exist.
People often point to drug development to illustrate your point about the necessity of patents, but how about a world in which drug development is public and funded by government as well as industry participants and a "drug company" becomes more of a "drug manufacturer" making generics. Lower profits, but consumers benefit from more selection, and I would argue the science of drug discovery would move faster because it could focus on discovery more than legal bullshit. If your interest in medicine is literally only money, maybe you should try something else other than medicine. Medical innovation did not start with patents.
I'm appalled that the US system doesn't automatically charge costs to the litigant in a losing case. The fact that a blameless party will now probably be underwater by about $12k is shocking.