Read more on Cloud Computing
- 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
The company's profit potential has helped propel Acacia shares close to their 52-week high, this in an otherwise ragged stock market.
But Acacia's activities have inevitably raised hackles in some quarters of the technology business. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, for instance, has lampooned Acacia on its Web site for "crimes against the public domain" because of what the Internet rights organization terms "laughably broad patents."
No doubt the company has acquired a reputation for hardball tactics, ultimately settling lawsuits against more than 200 companies to protect patents that it says it owns. Ryan, who dismisses suggestions that Acacia is simply in business to extort fees from other companies, recently spoke with CNET News.com.
We ran a profile on your company about a year ago and the lead paragraph was something to the effect that in the streaming media business, a letter from Acacia usually means one thing: the threat of a patent lawsuit. Does it bother you that Acacia has earned that sort of reputation?
Ryan: Well, that's not our reputation among large companies. We recently did three licenses with IBM, three with Sony, we announced one with Intel, and with Lenovo. So, we are licensing the major companies in the world. Patented technologies that we have partnered with the small companies that have developed these patented technologies but simply don't have the scale or the expertise or experience to go out and license the patents themselves. So, we're an outsource patent licensing company. We have the same people in place that IBM's licensing department would--except we're available on an outsource basis, and we're serving a large need for those companies.
Would it fair to say that Acacia builds portfolios in order to later extract settlements from others?
Ryan: No. Actually companies come to us who have patented technologies but who simply do not have the scale or the experience to license themselves, and they engage us basically on a partnership basis. We go out and perform that function and split the revenues with them. So, we're not targeting any particular areas, it's the companies that come to us with their patented technologies and if we feel that there's significant opportunity for licensing for that company to generate revenues for them, then we will become their partner.
Pardon me, but there are those who believe that there are entities--they call them patent trolls. This is used as a derogatory adjective, but I'm sure you're familiar with the term.
Ryan: Sure, absolutely.
Do you think those entities exist?
Ryan: Well, there are various definitions. I think it's a little bit disingenuous for companies that, in effect, steal other people's property by not licensing it to then call the party that developed the technology, "the bad guy." It kind of turns the world upside down...The term has been widely disseminated and used against companies generically that own patented technologies, which I think is a little unfair.
You guys are a patent licensing company. I've lost count, you've got currently how many patents now?
Ryan: It's over 150. There's a total of 47 different patent portfolios, and we've begun generating revenues from 17 of those so far.
See more CNET content tagged:
patent, outsource, streaming media, reputation, CEO
54 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
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
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
This is exhibit A why software patents are not only not needed, but dangerous. Everything in the software world is built on something else. I have yet to see a valid software patent. Hardware is a bit different, and benefits from some measure of patent protection.
Copyrights offers enough protection for software. They are very much like books. Just like you can't patent a book, or literary genre, software should not be patentable. This way, your work is protected, but dangerous sharks like this greedy idiot would be stopped in his tracks.
Can someone patent a web browser, chat room, or operating system? Of course not.
Imagine if the work of Einstein, Liebniz,Newton, Gauss, ect were pantented. Where would we be now? Yeah, Edison filed a lot of patents and I have no issue with that. He was not only bringing forward ideas, but concrete products. Besides, if Leibniz and Newton can independantly develop calculus, two people can come up with not only the idea of 1-click shopping, but 2 different implementations of it.
It is not a coincidence that the software industry has been seriously stifled since the shortsighted fecision to allow software patents. Look at all the algorithms, theorems and other ideas brought forward from 1950's to 1980's. They are still heavily used today and are constantly being built on and added to, to advance software. If these were patented back then, we would still be in the computing stone ages. Of course, these greedy bastards don't like to admit they invent nothing, or their "intellectual property" is built on others work. Who has time for honesty when there is money to extort?
Knowlege not only needs to be in the open, it thrives on it. Every accomplishment of mankind was built on the sharing of knowlege, not the buying and hoarding of it. Clueless people love to deride open source but it is a similar model that has been used for centuries to great effect. When we talk software patents, we are talking about ideas. Ideas can only live in the open, so others can advance and build onto that idea. That is how we got where we are today.
People like this guy are nothing more then parasites, they prey on others work, while contributing nothing to the world.
In addition to that, if there is no *new* hardware, it should not be patentable.
Let's face it; all software is mathematical in nature and simply implements algorithms that may be described mathematically. That's not bad on it's own, but no new invention is required to implement it. In the hardware arena, if a chip company devises a new whizbang IO buffer that does amazing things because of it's new physical architecture, then *that's* something new (and patentable).
When these guys talk about all their investment, I laugh. There is no less investment in people and specialised equipment in hardware, but then the hardware can cost 10s or even 100s of millions to make *on top of those costs*. There simply is no comparison.
On software patents, consider this: A general purpose computer (actually the CPU plus whatever else the manufacturer may have put on the die) is merely a grab bag of logic that may be configured as any one of it's elements at any time. Strictly speaking, that means that any possible sequence of instructions is obvious; the mere availability of the instruction makes it obvious it may be used.
Now whether any particular sequence is useful or not is another matter, but numerous different sequences may yield the same result. For that reason, because different approaches will be better for different settings, copyright (protecting the exact implementation of a sequence) is far better suited to software than a patent (protecting against any possible sequence). It goes against the spirit of 'advancing the useful arts' because we are then prevented from finding a better way to do something but using a different sequence.
No - these guys are patent trolls, pure and simple, and software patents are what enables them. The sooner that gets reformed out of the system, the better for the US software industry.
P
Very Well Said.
This is exhibit A why software patents are not only not needed, but dangerous. Everything in the software world is built on something else. I have yet to see a valid software patent. Hardware is a bit different, and benefits from some measure of patent protection.
Copyrights offers enough protection for software. They are very much like books. Just like you can't patent a book, or literary genre, software should not be patentable. This way, your work is protected, but dangerous sharks like this greedy idiot would be stopped in his tracks.
Can someone patent a web browser, chat room, or operating system? Of course not.
Imagine if the work of Einstein, Liebniz,Newton, Gauss, ect were pantented. Where would we be now? Yeah, Edison filed a lot of patents and I have no issue with that. He was not only bringing forward ideas, but concrete products. Besides, if Leibniz and Newton can independantly develop calculus, two people can come up with not only the idea of 1-click shopping, but 2 different implementations of it.
It is not a coincidence that the software industry has been seriously stifled since the shortsighted fecision to allow software patents. Look at all the algorithms, theorems and other ideas brought forward from 1950's to 1980's. They are still heavily used today and are constantly being built on and added to, to advance software. If these were patented back then, we would still be in the computing stone ages. Of course, these greedy bastards don't like to admit they invent nothing, or their "intellectual property" is built on others work. Who has time for honesty when there is money to extort?
Knowlege not only needs to be in the open, it thrives on it. Every accomplishment of mankind was built on the sharing of knowlege, not the buying and hoarding of it. Clueless people love to deride open source but it is a similar model that has been used for centuries to great effect. When we talk software patents, we are talking about ideas. Ideas can only live in the open, so others can advance and build onto that idea. That is how we got where we are today.
People like this guy are nothing more then parasites, they prey on others work, while contributing nothing to the world.
In addition to that, if there is no *new* hardware, it should not be patentable.
Let's face it; all software is mathematical in nature and simply implements algorithms that may be described mathematically. That's not bad on it's own, but no new invention is required to implement it. In the hardware arena, if a chip company devises a new whizbang IO buffer that does amazing things because of it's new physical architecture, then *that's* something new (and patentable).
When these guys talk about all their investment, I laugh. There is no less investment in people and specialised equipment in hardware, but then the hardware can cost 10s or even 100s of millions to make *on top of those costs*. There simply is no comparison.
On software patents, consider this: A general purpose computer (actually the CPU plus whatever else the manufacturer may have put on the die) is merely a grab bag of logic that may be configured as any one of it's elements at any time. Strictly speaking, that means that any possible sequence of instructions is obvious; the mere availability of the instruction makes it obvious it may be used.
Now whether any particular sequence is useful or not is another matter, but numerous different sequences may yield the same result. For that reason, because different approaches will be better for different settings, copyright (protecting the exact implementation of a sequence) is far better suited to software than a patent (protecting against any possible sequence). It goes against the spirit of 'advancing the useful arts' because we are then prevented from finding a better way to do something but using a different sequence.
No - these guys are patent trolls, pure and simple, and software patents are what enables them. The sooner that gets reformed out of the system, the better for the US software industry.
P
Very Well Said.
1. I wonder if the Patent Market Place is any different now, then it was in the 1800's and even most of the 1900's
2. Effectively? Well in general, they don't. Especially when it comes to Tech Patents. Saying that the courts understand these tech patents, is like saying your 80 year old grandmother can program your PC.
3. Almost every patent authority, including our own, agress that the US Patent system is out of control.
If anyone reads this story and thinks these guys are being unfairly judged are drinking whatever Acacia is.
Now excuse me, because I have 15 patents that I need Acacia to license for me.......
1. I wonder if the Patent Market Place is any different now, then it was in the 1800's and even most of the 1900's
2. Effectively? Well in general, they don't. Especially when it comes to Tech Patents. Saying that the courts understand these tech patents, is like saying your 80 year old grandmother can program your PC.
3. Almost every patent authority, including our own, agress that the US Patent system is out of control.
If anyone reads this story and thinks these guys are being unfairly judged are drinking whatever Acacia is.
Now excuse me, because I have 15 patents that I need Acacia to license for me.......