Reference: Types of conspiracy theory
THE out-of-control patent maximalism of Watchtroll is no laughing matter. These people are actually poisoning the debate. Yesterday Watchtroll attacked politicians who speak about patent trolls (that was Steve Brachmann and Watchtroll) and today Steve Brachmann attacks the EFF, calling it a "shill" of Google. Later, all sorts of abusive people are trying to call me a "Google shill" (as recently as this past weekend) or something along those lines even though I have absolutely zero connections with Google and never had any (I generally even avoid -- as a matter of principle -- virtually all of that company's services except Google News because it's hard to replace). This isn't entirely new a theme; they're seeing Google in everything and blaming it for everything in patents, maybe because of Michelle Lee's past career (before USPTO). A few hours ago Watchtroll cited the Campaign for Accountability (notice the capitalisation), known for many anti-Google actions (e.g. this one), just like Consumer Watchdog. They're now latching onto anti-Google front groups to satisfy their own 'conspiracy theories'.
"Watchtroll himself (Quinn) is one heck of a bully, helped by his hired writer Brachmann in their personal witch-hunt against people who favour technology and science (over litigation)."And it gets worse. Watchtroll himself is back to judge-bashing and court-bashing, unable to accept that the patent system in the US is being corrected in line with the law, Constitution etc. "The Collapse of U.S. Patent Policy by a Supreme Court preoccupied with Patent Trolls" is this latest headline, which basically precedes the third (by our count) attack on SCOTUS in the past month alone. It is always Watchtroll himself who attacks the judges, questions their motivations, and even demands their firings/resignations. It's like a mob site and it played a role in mobbing Lee out of her job.
Watchtroll sometimes has guest writers and not all of them are bad. If only they realised what they associate themselves with by writing for Watchtroll. About a week ago it wrote about pneumatic conveyance system patents, taking note of this case which we saw covered almost nowhere else. To quote:
M-I Drilling owns five U.S. patents covering pneumatic conveyance systems, which are utilized in the oil drilling industry to transport drill cuttings from oil rigs to ships as part of the disposal process. M-I LLC is an exclusive licensee of these patents. Brazilian-based DAL is a subsidiary of Minnesota-based Dynamic Air Inc. (DAI).
Pursuant to a contract with Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), DAL developed and installed pneumatic conveyance systems on two U.S. ships in 2013. M-I subsequently sued DAL in the District of Minnesota for infringement of its patents covering those systems. DAL moved to dismiss, arguing that due process prohibited the district court from exercising specific personal jurisdiction over DAL pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2). The district court granted DAL’s motion to dismiss, holding that DAL did not purposefully direct its activities toward the United States, because DAL’s activities onboard U.S. ships arose pursuant to its contract with Petrobras, who unilaterally determined where the pneumatic conveyance system would be installed. The court reasoned that it would neither be reasonable nor fair to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over DAL.