Comments on: Have patent, will sue
Acacia CEO Paul Ryan says the bad guys are the ones who don't pay license fees, not those looking for payment.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- China arrests thousands in Web porn crackdown
January 2, 2010 6:26 PM PST
- Application packaging for cloud computing: A proposal
January 2, 2010 4:56 PM PST
- When policemen are caught looking at Web porn
January 2, 2010 4:16 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
It is normal for a patent troll like this one to claim that they are not doing anything wrong and that, in fact, they are helping to the growth of the industry. And, according to the courts, they are. Now, the news only cover the high-profile patent cases involving big companies which can afford to pay millions in fines and millions more in licensing fees. So from the perspective of someone who only reads the news, one can say, "OK, but the companies who infringe another's patent can actually afford to pay licenses, so they must be made to pay". I'm all for that. But what about the smaller companies, which the news don't cover? An inside knowledge of the court system's cases would be necessary in order to know how many patent cases are actually processed by the courts. So, who knows how many cases actually happen that are, indeed, unfair. Say a small company develops a technology, I mean, really develop it, not just the concept. But they lack the resources for a thorough patent search to investigate whether a patent for their technology already exists. They are sued and need to go out of business. Now, the patent troll claims that he is right, and that the other guy is evil, when in reality, they were just ignorant about the patent. A legitimate business, gone out of business just because someone patented a dream. Tell me, Mr. Patent Man, how many cases like this have you handled?
It is normal for a patent troll like this one to claim that they are not doing anything wrong and that, in fact, they are helping to the growth of the industry. And, according to the courts, they are. Now, the news only cover the high-profile patent cases involving big companies which can afford to pay millions in fines and millions more in licensing fees. So from the perspective of someone who only reads the news, one can say, "OK, but the companies who infringe another's patent can actually afford to pay licenses, so they must be made to pay". I'm all for that. But what about the smaller companies, which the news don't cover? An inside knowledge of the court system's cases would be necessary in order to know how many patent cases are actually processed by the courts. So, who knows how many cases actually happen that are, indeed, unfair. Say a small company develops a technology, I mean, really develop it, not just the concept. But they lack the resources for a thorough patent search to investigate whether a patent for their technology already exists. They are sued and need to go out of business. Now, the patent troll claims that he is right, and that the other guy is evil, when in reality, they were just ignorant about the patent. A legitimate business, gone out of business just because someone patented a dream. Tell me, Mr. Patent Man, how many cases like this have you handled?
Phil White, President, ECC Technologies, Inc.
Phil White, President, ECC Technologies, Inc.
Think about it: open-source was created by programmers. What do programmers want? They want to be able to develop software that works and meets people's needs. If you've ever worked in a big company writing software, you know that the reason the company does things are obscure and often not related to either producing good quality software or software the user wants.
The open source people got together because they discovered how to solve this problem. Perhaps you're confused between open source and pirates? Or maybe you're in Paul's pay? You certainly can't work here in Silicon Valley, your ideas would be laughed out of town here.
In case you think I'm not speaking the truth, try downloading Open Office, and compare it to Microsoft's software. Reliable, better functionality, free, interoperable... what is there to complain about? What is the fear?
Think about it: open-source was created by programmers. What do programmers want? They want to be able to develop software that works and meets people's needs. If you've ever worked in a big company writing software, you know that the reason the company does things are obscure and often not related to either producing good quality software or software the user wants.
The open source people got together because they discovered how to solve this problem. Perhaps you're confused between open source and pirates? Or maybe you're in Paul's pay? You certainly can't work here in Silicon Valley, your ideas would be laughed out of town here.
In case you think I'm not speaking the truth, try downloading Open Office, and compare it to Microsoft's software. Reliable, better functionality, free, interoperable... what is there to complain about? What is the fear?
They then sit on the things until someone else does the hard work and actually puts a similar concept to use and to market. Then, they sue - basically getting/extorting income w/o doing any of the hard work.
Software patents also have a nasty habit of being vague... very vague.
For the un-ignorant, patent law with regards to software is a mess. Software patents should have never come to existence IMHO - software has sufficient legal protection in copyright, and shows that at least someone was willing to do the work - not just dream something up then lie in wait for someone else to do all the hard work.
They then sit on the things until someone else does the hard work and actually puts a similar concept to use and to market. Then, they sue - basically getting/extorting income w/o doing any of the hard work.
Software patents also have a nasty habit of being vague... very vague.
For the un-ignorant, patent law with regards to software is a mess. Software patents should have never come to existence IMHO - software has sufficient legal protection in copyright, and shows that at least someone was willing to do the work - not just dream something up then lie in wait for someone else to do all the hard work.
In my profession, distinguishing the truth of people's statements is critical. Paul Ryan's statements have a coercive, smug, I've-got-all-the-answers ring to them that I've found always means the person is hiding something obvious, usually at great personal gain to themselves.
The truth is that this man is like a leech on our society, supported by outdated laws. All the money that his team of lawyers extracts goes nowhere, producing nothing, just trophy homes. Instead startup anfter startup is forced out of business, costing jobs and throwing away ideas that could have been the next Great Thing. Here in Silicon Valley, I've seen countless examples of companies destroyed by patent trolls such as Rambus and Acacia.
Shyster lawyers trying to enforce "laughably broad patents" are another example of how this system is broken. The guiding idea behind what is patentable is simple: it has to be original, innovative and nonobvious. The litmus test is simple: if it's obvious to someone reasonably skilled in the art, it's not patentable. Lawyers love to argue over each of those terms, and who qualifies as "reasonably skilled" but the truth is that the patent system which was intended to foster and protect innovation has actually become a tool to stifle it. While there are instances where it works, over 90% of the patents I've read in my area of expertise are absolute garbage. They're either laughably broad or obviously covered by prior art. Unfortunately, that doesn't keep lawyers from trying to defend them, and in some cases succeeding.
In my profession, distinguishing the truth of people's statements is critical. Paul Ryan's statements have a coercive, smug, I've-got-all-the-answers ring to them that I've found always means the person is hiding something obvious, usually at great personal gain to themselves.
The truth is that this man is like a leech on our society, supported by outdated laws. All the money that his team of lawyers extracts goes nowhere, producing nothing, just trophy homes. Instead startup anfter startup is forced out of business, costing jobs and throwing away ideas that could have been the next Great Thing. Here in Silicon Valley, I've seen countless examples of companies destroyed by patent trolls such as Rambus and Acacia.
Shyster lawyers trying to enforce "laughably broad patents" are another example of how this system is broken. The guiding idea behind what is patentable is simple: it has to be original, innovative and nonobvious. The litmus test is simple: if it's obvious to someone reasonably skilled in the art, it's not patentable. Lawyers love to argue over each of those terms, and who qualifies as "reasonably skilled" but the truth is that the patent system which was intended to foster and protect innovation has actually become a tool to stifle it. While there are instances where it works, over 90% of the patents I've read in my area of expertise are absolute garbage. They're either laughably broad or obviously covered by prior art. Unfortunately, that doesn't keep lawyers from trying to defend them, and in some cases succeeding.
Why CNet continues to do these fluff pieces that don't address Acacia's trouncing on the V-chip or their woes dealing with our ongoing litigation is beyond me.
Why CNet continues to do these fluff pieces that don't address Acacia's trouncing on the V-chip or their woes dealing with our ongoing litigation is beyond me.
Why CNet continues to do these fluff pieces that don't address Acacia's trouncing on the V-chip or their woes dealing with our ongoing litigation is beyond me.
Why CNet continues to do these fluff pieces that don't address Acacia's trouncing on the V-chip or their woes dealing with our ongoing litigation is beyond me.
That goes against the entire spirit of the patent clause (one can read the debate in the federalist papers).
If you merely buy patents to get a revenue stream but never make, or intend to make, anything, then in my book you are a patent troll.
Shoe sure seems to fit here.
P
- Patent troll definition
- by InfiniPete July 10, 2006 11:36 AM PDT
- This is somewhat contentious, but my definition includes a company that buys patents and who have *no intention of making anything embodying the patent*, but merely use it for licensing.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- agreed but...
- by df561 July 10, 2006 11:43 AM PDT
- the term "Patent Troll" is too generous...they are far worse.
- Like this View reply
Processing -
Showing 1 of 2 pages (54 Comments)That goes against the entire spirit of the patent clause (one can read the debate in the federalist papers).
If you merely buy patents to get a revenue stream but never make, or intend to make, anything, then in my book you are a patent troll.
Shoe sure seems to fit here.
P