EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

01.04.10

Judge Randall Rader Redefines “Patent Troll”

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, IBM, Law, Microsoft at 6:18 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

IMTFE judges

Summary: Rader defends patent trolls by extending their scope of definition to Microsoft and IBM

A few days ago we discussed the term "patent troll", which the trolls are hoping to redefine and thus escape. A leading story in the intellectual monopoly meta-industry would be these words[PDF] from Rader. According to one article:

He also said that the pejorative but popular term, “patent troll,” which is often used to describe entities who own patents solely for the purpose of asserting them, is “terminology of the Skeptisaur.” “Almost every IP owner has patents it doesn’t practice,” said Rader. “That term would also cast away universities and research institutions, who are some of our most important contributors.”

Instead, Rader defined a troll as “anyone – from IBM and Microsoft down to the smallest patent owner – who asserts a patent far beyond its value.”

The answer to this problem, said Rader, is to find a way of properly valuing IP early in the litigation process, so that the value of a particular patent cannot be too grossly inflated. “Maybe we can short circuit the troll problem by assigning proper value to patents,” said the Judge.

The above was found by the president of FFII, who also shares the following post on “how to get Software Patents in the UK patent office.”

This law firm takes pride in finding loopholes to create harmful monopolies:

It is clear that patents offer greater protection over copyright and those computer programs which possess technical character should be protected as such rather than relying merely on copyright protection.

Copyright is sufficient, say programmers. Software patents are not formally legal in the UK, bar the Symbian case.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

10 Comments

  1. Jose_X said,

    January 4, 2010 at 6:53 am

    Gravatar

    It’s not really that copyrights are sufficient so that “patent protections aren’t needed”, as it is that patents can be very disruptive and simply put control out of the hands of those trying to advance the industry and society.

    Patents are too broad; they have scope over many inventions which simply resemble the patent author’s invention like the body resembles its shadow. Patents are too biased in favor of wealthy competitors; they are not automatic and are too expensive to take out and maintain. They are too stifling; they grant an absolute monopoly and for too long of a period of time (this is especially true for intangible creations and in the Internet collaboration/instant sharing era). They don’t recognize independent inventions; hence, they are quite unfair and disruptive to honest hard-working individual inventors and by extension to society (since honest inventors — who are as capable as dishonest inventors if not more — are much more likely to participate within society under fair terms).

    The result of all of this is that they clearly damage society and innovation. But then again their point is to allow some (trolls) to leeching off innovation, to allow others (titan companies) to control innovation, and/or to allow still others (lawyers) to make lots of money supporting them.

    [A recent rebuttal covering the above in more detail is in the comments section of http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?limit=10&chunk=0&perm=593056000000002130 ]

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Copyrights are “cheap”. You can earn them as soon as you code. Patents, on the other hands, are unfair barriers that only the rich can afford.

    your_friend Reply:

    Patents are a form of tax farming, a backdoor private tax. Governments create monopolies under the assumption that it will be easier to extract taxes from a small number of easy to control companies that are able to price gouge everyone else. At their best, as in the case of the early US, governments will claim they grant temporary monopolies for the public good, the advancement of the art or some other noble cause that outweighs odious exclusion and market interference. Regardless of justification, price gouging by the owner is the intended result.

    Patents on ideas are the most odious form of exclusion governments can make. It would be more honest and practical for government to grant outright manufacturing monopolies, as Kings and Communists once did, than it is for them to grant monopolies on concepts that mutually exclude all from doing anything. The US system has stagnated one of the richest economies in the world to the point where it seems practical to have all manufacturing done by Communist China.

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Things will be getting more complicated if the patent system keeps retarding local production. At the moment, the debt keeps growing.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16749

    Jose_X Reply:

    >> to allow others (titan companies) to control innovation

    What I meant was “to throttle (slow down) innovation”

  2. Jose_X said,

    January 4, 2010 at 7:02 am

    Gravatar

    The judge appears to be trying to improve upon a broken system.

    Here is a lawyer (Neil Schulman) that is gung-ho for creating as many types of ownerships as one can contrive. http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?limit=10&chunk=0&perm=593056000000002112

    The reply form Stephan Kinsella:

    >> Your mistake is in assuming that any “thing” can be owned. There are an infinite number of “things” out there–the human mind can conceptually understand the world in any number of ways. My love for my poodle “exists”. The fact-that-the-earth-rotated-today exists. My ability-to-jog exists. Poems exist. Crime exists. There “are” facts. I “have” memories. Perfume scents “exist.” Physics equations and mathematical algorithms “exist.” The method of long division is a “thing”. It is obviously ludicrous to assert that just because I can define or name or conceptualize a “thing” that it does, or even can, have an owner. We do not even get to the question of “who owns that thing?” unless the thing is an ownable thing. Not all things are ownable things. What is ownable? Only scarce resources. Information is not a scarce resource. You and I can both use the transistor-idea at the same time.

    Jose_X Reply:

    The judge appears to be trying to improve upon a broken system.. without first fixing the broken axioms.

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    All of our output — whether we like it or not — is just a combination of inputs. In other words, we put together things that we learn to make up “new” things. If we claim “ownership” of our “output”, who “owns” the “inputs”? Should all “inputs” carry a fee and/or a penalty? Does this transfer of imaginary wealth (liabilities) advance research in any way? Or is it an unnecessary inconvenience?

  3. Yuhong Bao said,

    January 4, 2010 at 11:22 am

    Gravatar

    In fact, it was exactly about the definition of the word “patent troll” that caused MS to be charged for misconduct in the MS/i4i case.

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Not quite.

    ‘The judge cited a particular incident in which a Microsoft lawyer compared plaintiff i4i, Inc. to banks that sought bailout money from the federal government under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.’

    ‘”He further persisted in improperly trying to equate i4i’s infringement case with the current national banking crisis implying that i4i was a banker seeking a ‘bailout’,” Davis said.’

    http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/enterpriseapps/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219400044

    It’s a different analogy.

What Else is New


  1. António Campinos Has Run Out of Time and EPO Staff is Going on Strike (Skipping Mere Protests)

    European Patent Office strikes are to resume; as SUEPO recently put it, people have come to accept that EPO leadership has not really changed and none of the underlying issues is being tackled



  2. Links 23/5/2019: Elisa 0.4.0, OpenSUSE Leap 15.1 Released

    Links for the day



  3. Links 22/5/2019: Mesa 19.0.5, Huawei and GNU/Linux, Curl 7.65.0, End of Antergos, Tails 3.14, ownCloud Server 10.2, Firefox 67.0

    Links for the day



  4. Quality of Patents is Going Down the Drain and Courts Have Certainly Noticed

    Uncertainty or lack of confidence in the patent system has reached appalling levels because heads of patent offices are just striving to grant as many patents as possible, irrespective of the underlying law



  5. EUIPO and EPO Abuses Growingly Inseparable

    'Musical chairs' at CEIPI and the EPO/EUIPO (Battistelli, Archambeau, Campinos) as well as joint reports never fail to reveal the extent to which EPO abuses are spreading



  6. Links 21/5/2019: China's GAFAM Exit, DragonFlyBSD 5.4.3

    Links for the day



  7. Links 20/5/2019: Linux 5.2 RC1, LibreOffice 6.3 Alpha, DXVK 1.2.1, Bison 3.4 Released

    Links for the day



  8. South Korea's Government Will Show If Microsoft Loves Linux or Just Attacks It Very Viciously Like It Did in Munich

    Microsoft's hatred of all things GNU/Linux is always put to the test when someone 'dares' use it outside Microsoft's control and cash cows (e.g. Azure and Vista 10/WSL); will Microsoft combat its longstanding urge to corrupt or oust officials with the courage to say "no" to Microsoft?



  9. Links 19/5/2019: KDE Applications 19.04.1 in FlatHub and GNU/Linux Adoption

    Links for the day



  10. The War on Patent Quality

    A look at the EPO's reluctance to admit errors and resistance to the EPC, which is its very founding document



  11. Watchtroll, Composed by Patent Trolls, Calls the American Patent System “Corrupt”

    Another very fine piece from Watchtroll comes from very fine patent trolls who cheer for Donald Trump as if he's the one who tackles corruption rather than spreading it



  12. Unified Patent Court Won't Happen Just Because the Litigation Microcosm Wants It

    Unified Patent Court (UPC) hopefuls are quote-mining and cherry-picking to manufacture the false impression that the UPC is just around the corner when in reality the UPC is pretty much dead (but not buried yet)



  13. Links 17/5/2019: South Korea's GNU/Linux Pivot, Linux 5.1.3

    Links for the day



  14. Q2 Midterm Weather Forecast for EPOnia, Part 4: Happy Birthday to the Kötter Group?

    This year the Kötter Group commemorates the 85th anniversary of its existence. But is it really a cause for celebration or would a less self-congratulatory approach be more fitting? And does it create the risk that a routine tendering exercise at the EPO will turn into Operation Charlie Foxtrot?



  15. Links 16/5/2019: Cockpit 194, VMware Acquires Bitnami, Another Wine Announcement and Krita 4.2.0 Beta

    Links for the day



  16. The EPO's Key Function -- Like the UPC's Vision -- Has Virtually Collapsed

    The EPO no longer issues good patents and staff is extremely unhappy; but the Office tries to create an alternate (false) reality and issues intentionally misleading statements



  17. Stanford's NPE Litigation Database Makes a Nice Addition in the Fight Against Software Patent Trolls

    As the United States of America becomes less trolls- and software patents-friendly (often conflated with plaintiff (un)friendliness) it's important to have accurate data which documents the numbers and motivates better policy; The NPE (troll) Litigation Database is a move towards that and it's free to access/use



  18. Q2 Midterm Weather Forecast for EPOnia, Part 3: “Ein kritikwürdiges Unternehmen”

    A brief account of some further controversies in which the Kötter Group has been involved and its strained relations with German trade unions such as Verdi



  19. EPO Had a Leakage Problem and Privacy of Stakeholders Was Compromised, Affecting at Least 100 Cases

    The confidentiality principle was compromised at the EPO and stakeholders weren't told about it (there was a coverup)



  20. Links 15/5/2019: More Linux Patches and More Known Intel Bugs

    Links for the day



  21. False Hope for Patent Maximalists and Litigation Zealots

    Patent litigation predators in the United States, along with Team UPC in Europe, are trying to manufacture optimistic predictions; a quick and rather shallow critical analysis reveals their lies and distortions



  22. The Race to the Bottom of Patent Quality at the EPO

    The EPO has become more like a rubber-stamper than a patent office — a fact that worries senior staff who witnessed this gradual and troublesome transition (from quality to raw quantity)



  23. Q2 Midterm Weather Forecast for EPOnia, Part 2: Meet the Kötters

    An introduction to the Kötter Group, the private security conglomerate which is lined up for the award of a juicy EUR 30 million contract for the provision of security services at the EPO



  24. Links 14/5/2019: Red Hat Satellite 6.5, NVIDIA 430.14 Linux Driver and New Security Bug (MDS)

    Links for the day



  25. Links 14/5/2019: GNU/Linux in Kerala, DXVK 1.2, KDE Frameworks 5.58.0 Released

    Links for the day



  26. Q2 Midterm Weather Forecast for EPOnia, Part 1: Urgent Shitstorm Alert

    Experts at the European Patent Office's (EPO) weather observation station have just issued an urgent alert warning about a major shitstorm looming on the horizon



  27. Patents That Were Gleefully Granted by the EPO Continue to Perish in Courts

    The decreasing quality of granted European Patents already becomes a growing problem if not a crisis of uncertainty



  28. Links 13/5/2019: ExTiX 19.5 and GNU Radio Conference 2019

    Links for the day



  29. The Microsoft Guide to the Open Source Galaxy

    Thou shalt not...



  30. Microsoft Would Kill the Goose for Money

    Microsoft is just 'monetising' Open Source by using it as 'bait' for Microsoft's proprietary software; those who we might expect to antagonise this have effectively been bribed by Microsoft


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts