HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

joemullin

no profile record

comments

joemullin
·3 tahun yang lalu·discuss
I'm aware that there are allegedly "bad" IPRs including the OpenSky case. The alleged "extortion" here is that VLSI, a non-practicing entity, I believe backed by a hedge fund, would lose their 20-year government monopoly and no longer be able to seek billions of dollars in court.

I have no idea who or what OpenSky is, and I don't weigh in on huge corporate cases like VLSI v. Intel where everyone has plenty of money for their own representation.

But it's really wild to me that this alleged "abuse" (that could lead to the loss of... a patent) immediately got the attention of officials, who are taking rapid action. Yet there are thousands of victims of patent troll extortion every year. These extortions are real, and documented, and hurt businesses that are much much smaller than VLSI. (and operate actual businesses, which AFAIK VLSI does not).

But here's the value proposition: It's just not wrong to challenge a government subsidy or monopoly. Period. Especially on computer software and hardware, because they're often wrongly granted.

Even if you accept that the OpenSky situation is the moral equivalent of patent trolling (I absolutely do not), it's happened to patent owners ONE time. (Maybe a few others, but it's a count-on-your-fingers thing). I wish people extorted by patent trolls for real money got 1/100th the attention of the tiny numbers of patent owners who lost (or almost lost) their patent monopolies.
joemullin
·3 tahun yang lalu·discuss
I work for EFF and wrote the text of this blog post and action. On here I speak only for myself, but a couple points I want to add.

1) EFF has only filed one IPR ever, (linked in the post), against Personal Audio, to invalidate a patent asserted against podcasting. This was crowd-funded by hundreds of people. It required years of litigation beyond the IPR process itself.

2) Patent challenges should be open to all. There's nothing wrong with a "for profit" org challenging a government monopoly - it's a public benefit. A good patent will often hold up (many do), a wrongly granted one will usually go down.

Please read the examples in the post of (very) small businesses, individuals, and nonprofits (Wikimedia) who were protected because another organization, often a for-profit, filed a successful IPR.

It's truly upside down world when USPTO is concerned its very limited monopoly-challenging services are being overused by "for-profits" that file "serial" petitions. In my career I have analyzed hundreds of shell companies that have (each!) sent out dozens or hundreds of threat letters and lawsuits demanding patent royalty payments (patent trolls). Guess what? They're ALL for-profit. They ALL file serial petitions with the hopes of a fast payout.

We have limited means to challenge this extortionate business model, and now USPTO is trying to drastically limit one of the best options. I hope they reconsider, and we ask for your support.

Thanks to all and I appreciate the discussion here.
joemullin
·3 tahun yang lalu·discuss
Can you point me to the government grant program that requires patents as part of the application process? That is potentially very concerning. I would be interested to learn more.