I kind of like this idea. If anything is going to motivate the political class to change things it's going to be when it finds itself on the receiving end of the problem.
I'll be cynical and think that many politicians won't really care since it is not their money, it is the tax payer's money. It will only matter if it threatens their reelection.
It (lawsuits against municipalities) has yet to reform how law enforcement works in the U.S. I doubt it will work to reform the patent system. That being said, maybe there is a "tipping point" where tax payers & pols alike say "enough!"
> ArrivalStar and Jones are making a direct play for taxpayer money, something that most patent trolls have avoided until now.
Surely, surely, this must provoke change? Now it's directly affecting tax payers people won't stand for it?
A "find prior art for this patent" website, with various gamification style badges and points could be insanely popular. Especially if it was accessible in small chunks on smartphones (so people could do 5 minutes of noodling while on a bus for example) and it had Facebook integration.
EDIT:
> ArrivalStar has even taken the bold step of suing the US Postal Service
>"The government can't just take property from someone, they have to pay for it."
This made me laugh pretty hard.
Licensing a "concept" is ridiculous and I don't know how people can get away with it. Suppose we came up with a very abstract definition of what constitutes a table, and the next time a company wants to design one they owe the inventor of the table a fee. Would that put it in perspective just how ridiculous patent trolls are?
Arrival star made a device that keeps track of schedules. I can understand patenting their specific hardware, designs, etc..., but how can they claim that they invented the concept of scheduling, let alone that it is so unique that they are able to mark it as theirs?
Hey, Arrival Star, it's called competition. If someone makes a similar device (without "stealing" your exact designs), don't cry about it. You need to one-up them or find a cheaper way to do it.
But that's exactly what most software patents are, they don't really patent how to do something but cover the outcome or the concept.
For instance, if someone invents a machine that takes a chunk of wood and makes a toy piano out of it can get a patent on the device. But someone else can invent a completely different, or even possibly slightly different, device that creates a similar toy piano and not infringe on the patent. But if it worked like software patents then it would be illegal for anyone to build little toy pianos, regardless of how, that are similar to the first patent on the concept.
As an example, Apple has a patent on slide-to-unlock on a predetermined path. This means that no one can create a slide-to-unlock on their system even it has completely different code, graphics, design, etc, if the thing slides to unlock on a path. Apple owns the "concept" of sliding something along a predefined path for the purpose of unlocking a device.
Even worse, I'm not sure such patents even say how it's done. It's like having a patent on a box with a button that pops out cupcakes when said button is pressed and declaring that no one ever again shall make a box that pops out cupcakes. Without ever having to bother to explain how said box works.
I laughed when I read this: "The government can't just take property from someone, and if they do, they have to pay for it," said Dowell. "Just because an entity is funded with taxpayer dollars doesn't give them the right to steal property."
It all sounds so nice, unfortunately they fail to mention who sets the price -- which is: the government. In many cases, if you look how they treated people in Texas while building the Mexico-Canada corridor, they were offered prices that anyone in sound mind would straightforwardly call "stealing".
I don't think any patent lawsuit, easy win or not, is going to cost less than $80,000.
For the city, the value of a suit would be compared against the proposed settlement. For the troll, the value of the suit would be compared against the proposed settlement times the number of potential targets. In this case: every city in America.
So the city has no hope that the troll would fold. Indeed we would expect the troll to fight tooth and nail and appeal well past the point where any city would see individual benefit.
This is why Patent Trolling works. You hit small targets for payouts lower than the legal fees of fighting and once that revenue is tapped, maybe you take a few shots at the endzone by suing larger companies.
As with patent trolls targeting mobile app developers, what this underscores, is the need for some joint-defense fund against patent trolls.
But whereas small app developers have little experience working together, fewer resources and place a higher priority on short-term benefit, US cities are quite different. They have experience working together, sharing knowledge and making joint plans. They have large total budgets and secure-enough footing to make plans even if they may not bear fruit for several years. The odds of their coming together to nip this in the bud are far higher than with small app developers or even larger tech companies.
Trolls may have just shot themselves in the foot on this one.
Not to mention that Mayors go on to be US Reps and Senators. It may take a decade, but it sure seems like making politicians lives hard is a sure fire way to end your industry.
"The government can't just take property from someone, and if they do, they have to pay for it," said Dowell. "Just because an entity is funded with taxpayer dollars doesn't give them the right to steal property. My client now owns 34 patents that are being infringed, and what else is he to do?"
You cannot support patents and at the same time tell us, with a straight face, that somehow it is still for the common good.
Pirates are accused of stealing for the way they handle IP--what mental gymnastics are folks willing to go through to condemn this while condoning that?
In the specific case of pirates... the difference is that the patents cover generic process, while the copyright infringement uses a specific instance. So a given song, aka a sequence of notes and lyric, or a character, or a book, can all be infringed, but if someone makes a similar song, character or book, it is not copyright infringement. Think of all the pop songs that sound basically the same, or the hundreds of books that are basically reworkings of Tolkien or The DaVinci Code - they don't infringe. The patent version would be "using strings (e.g. guitars, bass guitars, banjos, violins, etc) to convey sequences of notes to auditory receptors" and anyone who made music would be sued for patent violations. Note the vagueness - any stringed instrument qualifies, and sequence of notes qualifies, live and recorded music qualifies. This is not mental gymnastics, it is simply a question of what scope makes sense.
Hallelujah. Once mayor offices have trouble funding their campaign promises because of shit like this, they'll start complaining about it to their governors and federal representatives... who, being in the same fundamental profession, will actually listen.
No, it's not incorrect. Yours is a very defeatist attitude that doesn't help anyone.
The fact is, we don't know yet whether this will be a good or bad thing - though as noted, I believe it's likely to prove the former.
Your beliefs shape how your world evolves; if you choose to consistently interpret events negatively, as you just did, your world will move away from becoming a better, happier place.
I live in California; and in San Francisco. Every election there are additional taxes on the ballot. This year there are 3 different proposals to raise taxes by various amounts. Locally, the MUNI is out of money and is planning on raising rates, parking fees, etc. The City had to issue bonds to do basic street maintenance.
I think there are 2 underlying problems here: 1) the patent troll; and 2) the high cost of litigation. We focus on #1 here, but not much on #2. If it was easy (cheap) to defend oneself, more people would do so. If the amount he's asking for is significantly lower than the cost of defense, it makes fiscal sense to just pay him to go away.
Unfortunately, I think more and more people are going to be suing entities with Deep Pockets like this in the future, as it becomes a viable business model.
The only solution is to counter-sue and drive up the legal costs on the other side.
25 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 65.8 ms ] threadA mechanism for running a political campaign using a computer.
Surely, surely, this must provoke change? Now it's directly affecting tax payers people won't stand for it?
A "find prior art for this patent" website, with various gamification style badges and points could be insanely popular. Especially if it was accessible in small chunks on smartphones (so people could do 5 minutes of noodling while on a bus for example) and it had Facebook integration.
EDIT:
> ArrivalStar has even taken the bold step of suing the US Postal Service
You don't fuck with the postal service.
Last edit:
The patent (I think)
(http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sec...)
It's been done. http://www.articleonepartners.com/
This made me laugh pretty hard.
Licensing a "concept" is ridiculous and I don't know how people can get away with it. Suppose we came up with a very abstract definition of what constitutes a table, and the next time a company wants to design one they owe the inventor of the table a fee. Would that put it in perspective just how ridiculous patent trolls are?
Arrival star made a device that keeps track of schedules. I can understand patenting their specific hardware, designs, etc..., but how can they claim that they invented the concept of scheduling, let alone that it is so unique that they are able to mark it as theirs?
Hey, Arrival Star, it's called competition. If someone makes a similar device (without "stealing" your exact designs), don't cry about it. You need to one-up them or find a cheaper way to do it.
For instance, if someone invents a machine that takes a chunk of wood and makes a toy piano out of it can get a patent on the device. But someone else can invent a completely different, or even possibly slightly different, device that creates a similar toy piano and not infringe on the patent. But if it worked like software patents then it would be illegal for anyone to build little toy pianos, regardless of how, that are similar to the first patent on the concept.
As an example, Apple has a patent on slide-to-unlock on a predetermined path. This means that no one can create a slide-to-unlock on their system even it has completely different code, graphics, design, etc, if the thing slides to unlock on a path. Apple owns the "concept" of sliding something along a predefined path for the purpose of unlocking a device.
Even worse, I'm not sure such patents even say how it's done. It's like having a patent on a box with a button that pops out cupcakes when said button is pressed and declaring that no one ever again shall make a box that pops out cupcakes. Without ever having to bother to explain how said box works.
It all sounds so nice, unfortunately they fail to mention who sets the price -- which is: the government. In many cases, if you look how they treated people in Texas while building the Mexico-Canada corridor, they were offered prices that anyone in sound mind would straightforwardly call "stealing".
For the city, the value of a suit would be compared against the proposed settlement. For the troll, the value of the suit would be compared against the proposed settlement times the number of potential targets. In this case: every city in America.
So the city has no hope that the troll would fold. Indeed we would expect the troll to fight tooth and nail and appeal well past the point where any city would see individual benefit.
This is why Patent Trolling works. You hit small targets for payouts lower than the legal fees of fighting and once that revenue is tapped, maybe you take a few shots at the endzone by suing larger companies.
As with patent trolls targeting mobile app developers, what this underscores, is the need for some joint-defense fund against patent trolls.
But whereas small app developers have little experience working together, fewer resources and place a higher priority on short-term benefit, US cities are quite different. They have experience working together, sharing knowledge and making joint plans. They have large total budgets and secure-enough footing to make plans even if they may not bear fruit for several years. The odds of their coming together to nip this in the bud are far higher than with small app developers or even larger tech companies.
Trolls may have just shot themselves in the foot on this one.
US states have some special rights wrt US patents. Cities, as creatures of states, share those rights.
You cannot support patents and at the same time tell us, with a straight face, that somehow it is still for the common good.
Pirates are accused of stealing for the way they handle IP--what mental gymnastics are folks willing to go through to condemn this while condoning that?
Once mayor offices have trouble funding their campaign promises because of shit like this, they'll raise taxes, and screw the taxpayers yet again.
The fact is, we don't know yet whether this will be a good or bad thing - though as noted, I believe it's likely to prove the former.
Your beliefs shape how your world evolves; if you choose to consistently interpret events negatively, as you just did, your world will move away from becoming a better, happier place.
I live in California; and in San Francisco. Every election there are additional taxes on the ballot. This year there are 3 different proposals to raise taxes by various amounts. Locally, the MUNI is out of money and is planning on raising rates, parking fees, etc. The City had to issue bonds to do basic street maintenance.
It's a never-ending cycle.
Unfortunately, I think more and more people are going to be suing entities with Deep Pockets like this in the future, as it becomes a viable business model.
The only solution is to counter-sue and drive up the legal costs on the other side.