- Related Stories
-
Microsoft loses appeal in Office patent spat
June 16, 2006 -
Politicos mull action against patent system abusers
June 15, 2006 -
Supreme Court rules in favor of eBay
May 15, 2006 -
Patent firm woos big-name inventors
April 21, 2006 -
Patent auctions: Lawyer's dream or way of the future?
March 3, 2006 -
Microsoft alums amass thousands of patents
November 3, 2005 -
Staking a claim in the patent gold mine
July 20, 2005 -
Acacia purchase creates Net patent powerhouse
December 16, 2004
(continued from previous page)
And how did you acquire them? These aren't things that you've furnished seed money to develop, are they?
Ryan: Some of the original ones were. The television V-Chip--we provided the entrepreneurs, we funded the company that developed that technology. But the vast majority of the new partnerships that we're entering into are purely on the basis that we're an outsource licensing company and the developer of that technology then comes to us for us to fulfill that function. So, we are not developing any of the newer technologies that we are licensing.
Let's talk about patent reform. Your thoughts on where things stand and where they should be going?
Ryan: I think the patent system has worked pretty well for 200 years and the court system works very effectively...I think what's really occurred is then whenever companies want to lobby for reforms that would advantage them, first they create a crisis or supposed crisis. I don't think these companies that are proposing these changes all woke up one morning and said, 'Jeez, how can we make the world a better place and make the US patent system better.' I don't think that was their motivation.
What's your suspicion? Is there a particular group behind the scenes that's trying to foster that impression?
Ryan: The lines have been clearly well distinguished. If you look at the eBay amicus briefs, companies like GE and Procter & Gamble, and 3M, and the pharmaceutical industry and those people who've relied on patents that normally respect other peoples' intellectual property are on one side of the equation. There's a small number of tech companies who have formed some coalitions and ironically they're the same group that has time and time again been convicted in court of willful patent infringement.
But to play devil's advocate and since they're not here to defend themselves, they might say, "Look, the concept of a licensing-focused business such as yours, whose purpose is to extract fees from other growing concerns, that's not good for the technology business and simply stamps out innovation." Your response?
Ryan: Precisely the opposite. It's the patent system that enabled people like Thomas Edison who actually developed the new technologies, which these companies then want to use to make money without paying for. The invention process is critical to the growth of the US economy and it's the smaller companies that usually come up with the new innovations and disruptive technologies that then the larger companies want to adopt. There's no one forcing them to add these features to their products. Obviously, they're doing it because they can make more money using the new features that were patented by someone else.
But the cost of the average court challenge gets up there. I've seen figures quoted at around a million bucks on average. Presumably that would make it pretty tough on small companies that don't have that amount of pocket change. They'd just as soon pay somebody the fee to avoid a nasty court fight, wouldn't they?
Ryan: Most of the issues, again, are quite the opposite. It's usually the small company that's developed the technology and the large company knows that they have far more money and the litigation cost can run far in excess of your estimate. They can run $5 million, $10 million, $15 million. So, most small companies are intimidated to even attempt to go out and license and assert their patents because they can get tied up in very lengthy, very expensive litigation. Many large companies know that and therefore don't take licenses feeling that those companies will not have the financial wherewithal or the staying power to try to assert their intellectual property.
It looks as if patent reform up on Capitol Hill is a dead deal this year. Proponents couldn't get enough votes to get the thing going and it's an election year of course. Do you expect this to become a Washington issue in '07.
Ryan: Absolutely. This debate will continue and both sides will be actively involved in potential Congressional legislation. It will definitely not go away.
See more CNET content tagged:
Paul Ryan, patent, outsource, streaming media, reputation
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