Summary: The below-the-belt tactics of patent trolls and their allies show no signs of abatement and their tone reveals growing irritation and frustration (inability to sue and extort companies as easily as they used to)

THE INTERNET is not a pleasant place when it comes to discussions about patents. We may seem confrontational/abrasive at times, but nowhere near as much as trolls and their defenders. They describe people who invalidate patents as "killers" or "death squads". Watchtroll even called them a "cartel" earlier this month.

This theme of death or "kills" isn't too uncommon. Here is one patent maximalist stating: "In a Rule 36, Fed. Cir. Affirmed 101/Alice Kill of ZKey Patent Asserted against Facebook" (he always, without exception, uses the word "kill" in such scenarios, otherwise "survives" i.e. the language of militarism).

These people are habitually attacking CAFC judges, not just PTAB panels and SCOTUS Justices (as well as the EFF, as J Nicholas Gross repeatedly did when he wrote for the Web site of a patent troll last year). According to him, based on this tweet, professors stop being professors when he doesn't agree with them on patents. These are his words: "Anti-patent troll "Professor" (RIGHT!) Lemley reversed today: cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/… CAFC says his serial infringer client loses on 101 bc SOFTWARE-BASED 'innovations can make “non-abstract improvements to computer technology”' here security profile enabled bette [sic] virus filtering..."

J Nicholas Gross must be suffering from inferiority complex; he's not a professor like Lemley (heck, he is not even a doctor), so he's attacking Lemley's credentials. Some patent trolls did this to me as well, defaming me as having fabricated my Ph.D. and even resorting to literally below-the-belt insults (like speaking about my genitals in their public podcasts). He appeared to have developed quite a reputation for these things and he is connected online (maybe professionally) to these trolls, too. Here he is, only days ago, attacking PTAB's decision: "Another typical day at PTAB: Facebook inventor has novel, non-obvious invention that distinguishes over prior art, so Examiner overruled; but random application of 101 results in no patent: e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrieveP…"

And on he goes:

Today's CAFC decision proves categorically that their 101 jurisprudence is disastrously panel-specific, and your only hope as patent owner is that you are fortunated to get udges who actually understand how software works: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2520.Opinion.1-8-2018.1.PDF …

From what I can gather, virtually none of these proponents of software patent (and vocal PTAB bashers) even wrote a computer program. Ever. The above rant comes from a person (attorney) whose online profile suggests to be "[c]urrently marketing and soliciting offers for license or purchase of certain key patent assets in the area of e-commerce..."

Sounds like the patent 'assertion' types (borderline trolling). That explains it then. ⬆