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. The War on Privacy Escalated

    People's ability to behave freely and speak freely (without scrutiny from above) is running out of time; the tracking of people's every word, movement and thought is a tyrannical pivot many are conditioned to accept as "necessary" even though those standing to gain the most are perpetrators of abuse at higher levels



  2. Diversity and Inclusion: When Corporations Hijack or Co-opt Social Causes

    Whether minorities care to realise it or not (each person is a minority in one particular place/context or some particular aspect), corporations seek to control the narratives surrounding popular movements, facilitating social control and thus corporate power (exercising control over nonprofit communities that cannot be bought)



  3. Thirteen Years of Techrights This Year

    We're the survivor of a dying breed of sites, which are largely dedicated to FOSS-centric news



  4. Tell Lawyers That 'Privilege' Without Encryption is Just a Mirage

    The sad truth that law firms claim to respect privacy and security; they do in principle, whereas in practice they respect neither



  5. Links 25/8/2019: Happy Birthday to Linux, Enlightenment DR 0.23.0 Release

    Links for the day



  6. Openwashing Report: It's Not Just Microsoft, But Microsoft is by Far the Biggest Facilitator of That

    A weekly roundup looking back at distortion if not intentional misuse of the term "Open Source"; Microsoft is still working hard and spending a lot of money to control the narrative (e.g. to limit "Open Source" to what's on its proprietary platform, GitHub)



  7. Patent Maximalists Refuse to Accept That Their War on Patent Quality Also Dooms a Pan-European Patent Court System

    The EPO‘s embrace of patent maximalists’ agenda, which necessarily means significant decreases in patent quality (and deviation/departure from the EPC), dooms patent certainty; it also, however, dooms the Unitary Patent (UPC) because an extension of this rogue regime to the court system won’t be tolerated



  8. Links 24/8/2019: Wayland’s Weston 7.0 and More

    Links for the day



  9. Outsourcing to Microsoft and Openwashing as a Service (OaaS): This is the Linux Foundation in 2019

    The concept of "Open" at the Linux Foundation gives room for thought; are things really being opened or mostly marketed as "Open" and, if so, is the Foundation more like a marketing agency?



  10. Links 23/8/2019: Wine 4.0.2 Released, Removing Qt 4 From Ubuntu

    Links for the day



  11. Links 22/8/2019: KDE ISO Image Writer, GNU Parallel ‘Jesper Svarre’

    Links for the day



  12. Guarding and Rescuing the FSF Titanic: A Free (as in Freedom) Library, and Federation of Advocates

    "This library is not just for cultural works, but also for software."



  13. Linux Foundation's Linux.com in 2019: Zero Articles (Nothing Original) and a Terrible, Rookie New Design

    Linux.com has become a curated syndicator of news (edited by one single Microsoft proponent); the site has also eliminated its traditional design in favour of something only 'hipsters' can appreciate



  14. Managing IP as Team UPC's Megaphone and Lobbying Front

    Managing IP is lying on behalf of Team UPC yet again; the site's long history promoting the UPC hasn't ended even when prospects of the UPC are slim to none



  15. No More Rights for EPO Staff?

    The oppression and the crackdown on labour rights in Europe's second-largest institution has deepened to the point where staff is paid as little as is legally possible



  16. Links 22/8/2019: GNOME 3.33.91, Systemd 243 RC2, Cockpit 201, Ubuntu Touch OTA-10, FreeIPMI 1.6.4

    Links for the day



  17. Some Patent Attorneys Dislike Techrights Not Because It's Wrong But Because Software Patents Are Wrong (and Sometimes Illegal)

    Odd rants which misuse common law and ignore alleged Fair Use (and misinterpretation of copyright law, for censorship purposes) would have people believe that we're wrong; but it's more likely that the person in question is jealous, insecure, or offended by our stance on patent scope, which is very much rooted in the law itself (and the views widely held by software developers globally)



  18. Guarding and Rescuing the FSF Titanic: Distro-libre and feature-schema

    "Every time a distro does not suit a user's purposes, and it is less work to adapt the distro on one's own than to affect the distro in any other way, a distro is born."



  19. Links 21/8/2019: Dell's XPS 13, Mesa 19.2 RC1, Librem Update

    Links for the day



  20. Links 21/8/2019: Open Source POWER, Alpine 3.10.2, Netrunner 19.08

    Links for the day



  21. Edward as a Nodder to Team UPC Kool-Aid

    Bristows LLP is at it again and it's getting pathetic, not just dishonest as usual



  22. Guest Post: António Campinos' European Patent Office Redefines Modern Slavery in the Heart of Europe in 2019

    The European Patent Office’s (EPO) President António Campinos — like his predecessor Battistelli — emulates Chinese labour practices



  23. Guarding and Rescuing the FSF Titanic: There is More Than One Iceberg Ahead

    "This strategy is not far from when Microsoft talked about "de-commoditizing protocols" in the late 90s, as part of their plans to control, dominate, and end Open Source and Free software."



  24. EPO Cannot Handle Patent Justice With a Backlog of About 10,000 Cases at the Boards of Appeal

    The EPO's long war on judges and on the law has proven to be costly; it's difficult to pretend that the EPO functions like a first-world legal framework



  25. The European Patent Office Increases Surveillance: Can't Get Food Without Being Spied on

    The infamous "War on Cash" has been 'won' at Europe's second-largest institution, where people's diet can now be monitored and indefinitely retained on the system



  26. To GNU/Linux, the Operating System, GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft) is Not the Threat. Microsoft is.

    Don't let Microsoft get away with its bogus narration; GNU/Linux is primarily under attack from Microsoft, whereas Software Freedom in general is under attack from many directions



  27. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) Has the Full Support of Techrights

    Our support for the FSF is strong enough that we want to occasionally suggest improvements; there are growing frictions designed to isolate the FSF and cause self-restraint/censorship



  28. Why We Support Phoronix (Whereas Some Others Do Not)

    Some people try to characterise Michael Larabel as the 'bad boy' of Linux even though Michael is probably the hardest working Linux journalist out there



  29. Guarding and Rescuing the FSF Titanic: The Simplest Ways that AI will Change Computing

    "AI is already used to help kill people. We should be cautious, and know that the best rules we come up with (like no doing magic outside the school grounds) won't be followed all the time."



  30. Links 20/8/2019: DragonFlyBSD Developing DSynth

    Links for the day


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