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

02.18.18

Bejin Bieneman Props Up the Disgraced Randall Rader for Litigation Agenda

Posted in America, Courtroom, Patents at 3:36 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Bejin BienemanSummary: Randall Rader keeps hanging out with the litigation ‘industry’ — the very same ‘industry’ which he served in a closeted fashion when he was Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit (and vocal proponent of software patents, patent trolls and so on)

ABOUT a month ago we wrote about Bejin Bieneman planning to give a platform to the man who is responsible — via the courts system — for a lot of patent trolls and out-of-control patent scope at the USPTO. He was pretty much forced to quit after he had been caught making a mockery of the court he headed (as Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit).

“He was pretty much forced to quit after he had been caught making a mockery of the court he headed (as Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit).”The patent trolls’ lobby loves him, no matter the scandals, and this propped-up-by-IAM person is still out there, lobbying and seeking more power in institutions including the USPTO. He’s getting all cozy with patent maximalists, as always, and days ago, as expected, they tweeted about it: “For those of you who missed yesterday’s webinar, Settlement Strategies, featuring Judge Randall R. Rader, Joseph Dunn, and Thomas Bejin, here is the YouTube recording…”

“Sadly, as we noted some days ago, the “revolving doors” culture is alive and well at the USPTO and US patent courts.”So Mr. Rader is not so ‘retired’ after all, he’s just ‘hibernating’ whilst lobbying. He’s looking for ways to get back into the system, even as Director of the USPTO.

Sadly, as we noted some days ago, the “revolving doors” culture is alive and well at the USPTO and US patent courts. We already mentioned David Kappos and Paul Michel four days ago.

There are other such ‘webinars’ which push an agenda and front groups. How about this upcoming one (2 days from now): “Attend our webinar on patent portfolio monetization on Feb 20, hosted by the Knowledge Group @Know_Group, with speakers from TechInsights, @KnobbeMartens and @Oblon_IP”

“All these echo chamber-type ‘webinars’ are nothing but marketing; for Rader to participate in these says a lot about Rader.”Those are prominent elements of patent maximalism. Don’t say patent trolls however; It’s nice(r) to say “patent portfolio monetization” (like giving patent for trolls to bully one’s competitors). How about terms such as “Asserting Patent Rights” from Watchtroll (the headline from Meredith Addy 3 days ago)? They keep coming up with all sorts of terms like “efficient infringers” and “death squads” (this one is Rader’s). Addy said: “While my patent litigation practice represents both patentees and defendants, I remain concerned about developments in our patent laws that undercut protections for innovators. I continue to believe that the playing field is unfairly tipped to accused infringers.”

Why does she care? Because she profits from litigation. The more litigation, the more money she makes (no matter if she represents a plaintiff or a defendant). All these echo chamber-type ‘webinars’ are nothing but marketing; for Rader to participate in these says a lot about Rader. This is why he’s kept away from his old job. He can go hang out with patent trolls all he wants, but not while he holds a key position in a high court.

02.17.18

With Stambler v Mastercard, Patent Maximalists Are Hoping to Prop Up Software Patents and Damage PTAB

Posted in America, Courtroom, Patents at 12:25 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“…patents for some technical sectors have been somewhat deprecatorily called by Mark Lemley and Carl Shapiro, a “lottery ticket”,” Neil Wilkof wrote before the weekend.

Gambling
Summary: The patent ‘industry’ is hoping to persuade the highest US court to weaken the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), for PTAB is making patent lawsuits a lot harder and raises the threshold for patent eligibility

THE patent maximalists in the United States want us to believe that the more patents are granted and the more lawsuits are filed, the greater the “innovation” will be (they just can’t help misusing such buzzwords*). The USPTO uses similar claims to justify never-ending expansion (e.g. number of granted patents). Suffice to say, that’s just a bubble.

Found via several patent maximalists such as this one was this new post in which Dennis Crouch (part of the patent microcosm) said: “The case relates to Stambler’s U.S. Patent No. 5,793,302 (authentication system and method). The patent has been asserted in dozens of cases and upheld in several court decisions prior to the PTAB finding it invalid.”

Oil States is an anti-PTAB case which we expect to see ruled in favour of PTAB some time later this year.”This is about Stambler v Mastercard, a case which the patent maximalists will be trying to bring to the Justices. Why? Because it’s a potentially anti-PTAB case. Groups such as the EFF will hopefully submit oppositions if possible. From the petition: “The first question is substantially similar to that presented in Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC, No. 16-712 (June 12, 2017), which has been argued and is awaiting decision by the Court. The second question is identical to that presented by the Petition for writ of certiorari in Celgard, LLC v. Matal (No. 16-1526) (question #2, petition pending).”

Oil States is an anti-PTAB case which we expect to see ruled in favour of PTAB some time later this year. We’ll say a lot more about PTAB tomorrow and on Monday. Oppositions to PTAB continue to slow down (losing momentum); the patent microcosm may have given up trying.

“…the barrier for (court) entry has been raised, which is probably bad news for lawyers but good news for everybody else.”The gold rush for low-quality patents was a bubble in the making. IAM has just published a puff piece/ad for its partner Clarivate, which measures companies in terms of patents, but what sorts of patents? Nowadays we see a lot of these patents imploding; PTAB and the courts do this. Unified Patents said in its Web site yesterday that it wants to educate law students on PTAB practice. Unified Patents itself extensively utilises PTAB to eliminate software patents. As they put it yesterday:

Unified Patents recently launched its 2nd public law school project to curb patent abuse against SMEs. In conjunction with University of Detroit Mercy School of Law and Brooks Kushman, Unified is working to help educate students on PTAB practice.

PTAB is, in our view, like a cleanup mechanism within the USPTO itself. “IP Edge managing director Gautham Bodepudi,” as IAM described him yesterday, suggests that “plaintiffs in US patent cases who understand the odds of victory are almost always best off settling” (not direct quote). IAM even used the word “trolls” (in relation to patent trolls):

The vast majority of patent disputes in the US settle before they end up in court. One reason for this, it is claimed, is because scared defendants are worried into making suits go away by aggressive plaintiffs (trolls) who give them a choice of settlement at one price or fighting a suit at a higher price. And, undoubtedly, there is an element of that involved.

However, there is a lot more on top. For example, looking from the plaintiff’s perspective there are also significant disincentives to take a fight all the way – especially against deep pocket corporate opponents.

According to some recent figures, about two-thirds of patent aggression bouts go unnoticed because they never reach the courts and the public might therefore not find out about them (unless a press release is issued). One way to look at it is, the aggressors are scared of the courts (or PTAB); another is, the accused/defendant is scared of litigation. Either way, the barrier for (court) entry has been raised, which is probably bad news for lawyers but good news for everybody else.
_____
* The embrace of buzzwords can also be seen here. “AI” is an old hype wave resurrected (we presume by corporate marketing people along with gullible ‘journalists’ looking for popular key terms). It’s also propped up by the patent ‘industry’ in order to paint software patents as ‘novel’ (when they’re not).

The Patent Microcosm Takes Berkheimer v HP Out of Context to Pretend PTAB Disregards Fact-Finding Process

Posted in America, Courtroom, Patents at 10:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Berkheimer v HP
The original decision

Summary: In view or in light of a recent decision (excerpt above), patent maximalists who are afraid of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) try to paint it as inherently unjust and uncaring for facts

EARLIER this month we wrote about Berkheimer, a decision that had been distorted somewhat by the patent microcosm (as usual).

This distortion continues unfortunately (but expectedly), with sites such as Watchtroll writing about it yesterday. Dennis Crouch too panders to patent extremists with their false allegations that PTAB ignores/overlooks facts. Here is what he wrote:

Following upon its February 8 decision in Berkheimer, the Federal Circuit has again sided with the Patentee on eligibility grounds – holding here that the lower court’s judgment on the pleadings failed to consider disputed issues of material fact. Prior to this pair of cases, it was unclear whether eligibility analysis involved factual questions. Although pair of cases indicate a precedential sea-change, both opinions were written by Judge Moore and joined by Judge Taranto (Berkheimer was also joined by Judge Stoll).

Like we said before, this isn’t necessarily about Section 101 and it does not imply what many patent extremists are trying to insinuate. Managing IP framed it as a Section 101 ‘thing’ and also called it a “blockbuster” (in the headline even). It’s only a blockbuster for those who want it to be. There was nothing fascinating about it. To quote the outline:

“Whether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination,” writes Judge Moore. Observers have taken this as a sign of the pendulum swinging back towards patent owners on Section 101

“Observers”?

They mean the patent microcosm. Then again, consider whose megaphone sites like Watchtroll, Patently-O and Managing IP really are. We might need to do some more debunkings in the future when Berkheimer is brought up. We’ll give some examples of that tomorrow and on Monday as it has become somewhat of a theme/pattern.

02.16.18

Patent Trolls Are Thwarted by Judges, But Patent Lawyers View Them as a ‘Business’ Opportunity

Posted in America, Patents at 4:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Law firms in various states hope that the demise of the Eastern District of Texas will mean more lawsuits where they are

USA map

Summary: Patent lawyers are salivating over the idea that trolls may be coming to their state/s; owing to courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) other trolls’ software patents get invalidated

AS NOTED in the last post, patents granted by the USPTO are often passed to trolls sooner or later. The trolls would like to think of themselves as “monetisers”, but all they really do is tax the economy. That does not help innovation or creativity; it merely crushes both. TC Heartland, a Supreme Court decision from about 9 months ago, continues to worry firms that profit from patent trolls and aggressors. One of them, writing in lawyers’ media, expressed a common lawyers’ concern that patent litigation is declining (true story), then expressing optimism about trolls coming ‘home’ to Georgia:

Is patent litigation coming home to Georgia? Last year the U.S. Supreme Court holding in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands significantly affected the law of venue jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) for patent infringement cases. One result was to shift new patent complaint filings away from federal district courts that had been perceived to be plaintiff-friendly, such as the Eastern District of Texas, as I recently wrote in the Daily Report. TC Heartland only clarified one of the tests for patent venue in § 1400(b), holding that the provision “where the defendant resides” is limited to only the district where the defendant is incorporated.

[...]

The year 2018 will likely bring resolution to some of these issues – and more patent litigation to Georgia. I believe we can expect at least one, but perhaps two precedential Federal Circuit decisions further clarifying “where” a defendant committed an act of infringement, with one or both relating to software method and pharmaceutical patent infringement.

Watch their glee. They want lots and lots of lawsuits. That’s business to them. Never mind if the Eastern District of Texas was a cautionary tale and the Eastern District of Texas became synonymous with trolls, discouraging technical investment in the area (companies might think twice before opening a branch near there).

Georgia has some decent academic institutions (one very famous university, especially for its technical achievements), so we hope that Georgians will confront these legal opportunists.

Not too long ago in California Cloudflare spent a lot of time and money battling a patent troll. It took almost a year to win the case. SoylentNews mentioned that, as did TechDirt, writing about it with some background:

Last year, we wrote about how a relatively new patent trolling operation had pretty clearly picked the wrong target in suing internet infrastructure provider Cloudflare with a sketchy patent (US Patent 6,453,335 on “providing an internet third party data channel.”) Cloudflare decided not only to fight the case, but to fight all of Blackbird’s patents, crowdsourcing and funding searches into prior art on any patent held by Blackbird Technologies, and arguing that the company was engaging in questionable legal practices — acting both as a patent holding company and a law firm, while sometimes pretending not to be a law firm (despite employing mostly lawyers) to avoid some serious ethics questions.

We certainly hope that § 101 will carry on finishing off patent trolls. This was one such case. Ars Technica, which now lacks its main patent trolls expert (he moved to the EFF this month) wrote about it also. To quote:

A federal judge in San Francisco has unequivocally ruled against a non-practicing entity that had sued Cloudflare for patent infringement. The judicial order effectively ends the case that Blackbird—which Cloudflare had dubbed a “patent troll”—had brought against the well-known security firm and content delivery network.

“Abstract ideas are not patentable,” US District Judge Vincent Chhabria wrote in a Monday order.

Abstract ideas are a subject we’ll revisit this weekend.

Another patent troll which got mentioned the other day is Motivational Health Messaging. Unified Patents wrote about the status of the patent in question. The EFF’s role has been mentioned too:

Unified is pleased to announce the PATROLL crowdsourcing contest winners, Rohit Sood and Devarajan Govindaswamy, who split a cash prize of $2000 for their prior art submissions for U.S. Patent 9,069,648. The EFF previously named the ’648 patent as a ‘Stupid Patent of the Month’ noting that numerous small companies have been threatened with infringement allegations by Motivational Health Messaging, LLC (an NPE). To help the industry fight stupid patents, we have published the winning prior art below.

Another troll, Wordlogic, was mentioned by Unified Patents on the same day (lovers’ day). To quote:

On February 14, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted trial on all challenged claims in an IPR filed by Unified against U.S. Patent 7,681,124 owned and asserted by Wordlogic Corporation, an NPE. The ’124 patent, directed to a user interface for predicting and presenting text completion candidates in response to a user’s partial text entry, has been asserted in multiple district court cases against such companies as Fleksy, Touchtype, Chicago Logic.

PTAB is great and we have plenty to write about it this weekend.

02.14.18

Andrei Iancu Begins His USPTO Career While Former USPTO Director (and Now Paid Lobbyist) Keeps Meddling in Office Affairs

Posted in America, Patents at 4:47 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

David Kappos can’t keep out of affairs he has no business in (other than his lobbying business)

David Kappos
Source: David Kappos 2013 interview

Kappos PAI

Summary: The USPTO, which is supposed to be a government branch (loosely speaking) is being lobbied by former officials, who are now being paid by private corporations to help influence and shape policies; this damages the image of the Office and harms its independence from corporate influence

THERE’S one aspect at the US patent system which resembles EPO scandals.

Linking to his official new page, the USPTO has just announced Andrei Iancu’s arrival. It said: “It’s official! Andrei Iancu is the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO…”

“On February 13, 2018, the USPTO issued 6,825 patents, including 6,152 utility patents — Each signed by the new USPTO Director Andrei Iancu (albeit via automated electronic process),” Crouch wrote some hours ago, having recently noted — as did others — that “USPTO Budget Holds Steady at $3.4B under Trump Budget”. Quoting Crouch:

The Trump proposed budget for FY2019 appears to be essentially flat as compared with FY2018. The proposed budget would permit the USPTO to spend up to $3.459 billion in FY 2019 (year beginning October 1, 2018). We are approaching the 1/2 way mark for FY 2018. In the most recent PPAC meeting, PTO Chief Financial Officer Tony Scardino reported expected FY2018 spending of $3.444 billion.

Watch how the USPTO spends its budget. Today there’s this marketing video for Valentine’s Day, as covered by patent maximalists for the most part, e.g. [1, 2, 3].

Nothing seriously wrong with that. They’re not really lobbying for anything and unlike the FBI and patent maximalists they aren’t engaging in China-baiting (for the sake or some agenda). What actually worried us a lot more was IAM; shortly before posting this sponsored piece from China (“Revised Anti-unfair Competition Law enters into force”) it actually helped paid lobbyist David Kappos (he profits from lobbying, in effect converting his time as USPTO Director into ‘influence’ cash) in pushing antitrust agenda along with Paul Michel (who even in his ‘retirement’ keeps meddling in courts’ affairs, promoting patent maximalists’ agenda). Kappos is connected to IBM and to IAM (he writes pieces there). IAM said that a “[g]roup of academics and senior IP figures write to DOJ antitrust chief to voice their support for focus on IP and antitrust” (what they mean by “IP” is patents).

As the article itself makes clear, they actively antagonise actual companies that make things; instead they promote the agenda of parasitic law firms. To quote:

A high-profile group of academics and senior IP stakeholders – including former Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Paul Michel and former USPTO Director David Kappos – have written to Department of Justice antitrust head Makan Delrahim to voice their support for what they characterise as his commitment to apply antitrust law equally to both those who develop patented technology and those who implement standards-based technology.

The group also criticises a letter sent to Delrahim late last month from a collection of mostly tech companies – including Cisco, Dell, Intel, Microsoft and Samsung – which expressed concern over parts of a speech given by America’s antitrust czar in November last year.

The USPTO ought to get formal officials under control. It’s not just Kappos who keeps meddling; Robert Stoll comes to mind too (he’s supposed to have ‘retired’ 7 years ago after 29 years of service).

The USPTO has a serious lobbying problem. Is it aware of it? Is Iancu already noticing?

02.13.18

The Campaign to Subvert the US Patent Office by Misrepresenting Its Successes

Posted in America, Law, Patents at 2:42 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Two guys

Summary: Figureheads of the patent microcosm (firms that profit from patent chaos) are still meddling in affairs which they intentionally mis-portray, conflating innovation with number of patents and so on

THE new Director of the USPTO completes nearly a week in his new job. He has not said a word yet, not in his capacity as Director anyway. Plenty of people speak (or preach) to him, hoping to influence him on policy. IAM, for instance, has just noted: “Patents just get one mention in Pres. Trump’s new budget (see p.29) https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/budget-fy2019.pdf”

“We are generally seeing the Federal Circuit frequently (about 80% of the time) ruling in favour of PTAB, which falls under the wing of the USPTO.”This is consistent with what we saw before. Trump, Gorsuch (Trump’s SCOTUS pick) and others barely say anything about patents. It’s a mystery. Maybe this whole administration just does’t give a damn about patents, it only speaks of “China” and “IP” in rather vague terms. Either way, Josh Landau (CCIA) has just “said it like it is” in his long blog post about the misinformation that’s relying on a Chamber of Commerce “index” (covered in here a few days ago). His opening statement goes like this:

The Chamber of Commerce produces a yearly ranking of intellectual property systems around the world. This year, they dropped the U.S. patent system to 12th. If I thought their rankings had any merit, I might be concerned by this change. Unfortunately, their analysis is flawed and based on complete misrepresentations of reality.

Earlier this week Watchtroll collated and published texts from the patent microcosm. He wants to tell Iancu (also of the patent microcosm) what to do to the Office. No engineers offer their input; it’s basically a bunch of law firms, just like the one Iancu came from.

Iancu is now inheriting cases formally filed against the interim head of the Office (these are cases against the Office, but for formal reasons a person, such as Michelle Lee, gets specified). One such case is Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v Matal — a case which was recently explained as followed:

The Federal Circuit therefore concluded that the USPTO did not err in calculating a 40-day PTA for the ’675 patent under § 154(b)(1)(A)(i)(II), and affirmed the District Court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the USPTO.

We are generally seeing the Federal Circuit frequently (about 80% of the time) ruling in favour of PTAB, which falls under the wing of the USPTO. In this particular case, which does not involve PTAB, we are seeing this too.

We certainly hope that the Office and the courts will remain in cohesion, loosely indicating that the Office makes the correct decisions (as per judges). The patent microcosm has long attempted to subvert the Office, hoping it would garner more litigation and feuds (which they profit from).

Granting patents just for the sake of granting more of them is almost always a mistake.

Congratulations to Cloudflare on Beating Patent Troll Blackbird Technologies

Posted in America, Courtroom, Patents at 1:24 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Previously:

Summary: After nearly a year in the court (no doubt an expensive exercise for Cloudflare) the Northern District of California finally dismisses the lawsuit, deeming the underlying claims “[a]bstract ideas [which] are not patentable”

THIS is certain to receive more press coverage soon. We first found out about this nearly 6 hours ago, after this post by Doug Kramer, titled “Bye Bye Blackbird” (with a clever picture, too).

Those are USPTO-granted patents which we wrote about in the summer of 2017 (see index above). To quote Kramer:

As we have talked about repeatedly in this blog, we at Cloudflare are not fans of the behavior of patent trolls. They prey upon innovative companies using overly-broad patents in an attempt to bleed settlements out of their targets. When we were first sued by a patent troll called Blackbird Technologies last spring, we decided that we weren’t going along with their game by agreeing to a modest settlement in lieu of going through the considerable effort and expense of litigation. We decided to fight.

We’re happy to report that earlier today, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case that Blackbird brought against Cloudflare. In a two-page order (copied below) Judge Vince Chhabria noted that “[a]bstract ideas are not patentable” and then held that Blackbird’s attempted assertion of the patent “attempts to monopolize the abstract idea of monitoring a preexisting data stream between a server” and is invalid as a matter of law. That means that Blackbird loses no matter what the facts of the case would have been.

Well done to this legal team. It may have just saved other victims of Blackbird (present and future). Let’s hope we never again hear this troll’s name.

02.12.18

Denialists of Patent Trolls Are at It Again

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 6:51 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Climate change denial
Reference: Climate change denial

Summary: The patent trolls’ lobby (sites like IAM and Watchtroll or Koch-funded scholars) want us to think that patent trolls are just a myth that can be dismissed and ignored; sadly for these lobbyists, underlying facts are not on their side

THE USPTO has just celebrated Thomas Edison as though he was a legendary inventor. He was a patent troll-type businessman who preyed on actual inventors. We last wrote about it yesterday (we had written about that in past years too). The USPTO does itself no favours by using Thomas Edison like some sort of a mascot. He was a patent troll and a predator. Not something for the USPTO to take pride in. IBM then came up with similar celebrations of patent maximalism, not quite noting that IBM presently acts like a patent troll because real business runs dry. IBM threatens litigation, files lawsuits, gives patents to literal trolls, and actively lobbies for software patents.

“IBM threatens litigation, files lawsuits, gives patents to literal trolls, and actively lobbies for software patents.”Seeing that a lot of entities are now being portrayed as trolls, Watchtroll’s Steve Brachmann and Gene Quinn decided to come up with this headline bait (“A Poor History of Wright Brothers Concludes they were Patent Trolls”). Today’s spin from Watchtroll (only hours old) is that tired old canard like “Thomas Edison Was a “Patent Troll” ” by the Koch-funded Mosoff. The headlines may seem attractive (clickbait), but it’s actually hogwash/whitewash of trolls — something that’s an integral part of Mosoff’s career. Watchtroll is, as usual, trying to cheapen or dilute the term “patent trolls” so as to make it meaningless. Nobody ever claimed that the Wright Brothers were patent trolls (here’s Wikipedia’s outline of the Wright brothers patent war) except apologists of patent trolls, who sought to dispel the very existance of such a thing as patent trolls. There’s a whole ‘cargo cult’ which revolves around denial of patent trolling (IAM does this a lot and not too surprisingly it receives a lot of money from trolls). Almost like people who deny global warming/climate change… Donald Trump likex to blame everything on “China!” (including the very discussion of climate change) and the patent microcosm uses “China!” as the excuse for almost everything (we wrote two articles about that on Saturday).

Speaking of China, evidence continues to pile up supporting our hypothesis that China is learning how to use patents — like it does censorship — to ban foreign players. As IAM (a trolls denialist) put it earlier today:

Veeco initiated the conflict in July 2017, telling a US judge that its market leading business in LED manufacturing equipment had been undercut by Chinese competitor AMEC through a combination of IP infringement and state subsidies. The US firm asked SGL Carbon – a common supplier – to stop doing business with its rival, and when the German company refused, it asserted multiple patents against it.

“After damaging injunction awards, US, Chinese & German companies involved in international semiconductor patent dispute bring their battle to an end,” IAM summarised in Twitter. Those aren’t trolls, but their disputes generally serve to show that nobody benefits except lawyers. They must have made a large bundle of cash out of these feuds.

After the 2017 SCOTUS ruling on TC Heartland (action directed primarily at trolls), it may as well be noted, the patent trolls are having a hard time moving patent litigation to places/venues like EDTX. Maybe they’ll try China. As this Docket Report put it the other day:

The court granted defendants’ alternative motion to transfer plaintiff’s patent infringement action for improper venue because defendants did not have a regular and established place of business through their dealerships in the district.

How about this tweet which said: “What is a patent troll in reality? They are speculators. They are market makers. They buy inventions to sell. This frees up inventors to specialise. Not to be a salesman but to create. Yes. Speculators are hated. It is envy. We see them when they make money. Most fail.”

I couldn’t help replying with: “What is a Mafia ‘in reality’? They are speculators. They are market makers. They make threats. We see them when they make money.”

Trying to trivialise trolls isn’t too wise a thing to do. Even SCOTUS uses the word “trolls” to refer to these. It’s not just a myth.

« Previous Page« Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries »Next Page »

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 Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts