Un-fucking-believable(furbo.org)
furbo.org
Un-fucking-believable
http://furbo.org/2014/06/05/un-fucking-believable/
17 comments
In fact, the whole patent troll problem is partly because patents are not like this. They can buy up all kinds of junk and wait until there's broad industry adoption of some concept and submarine everyone. Although it would open a whole different can of worms, we might actually be better off if patents were like that because it would at least bring things to a head very fast.
It's not a use-it-or-lose-it like a trademark, but my understanding is that selective enforcement of the patent could put legal actions against the people you do go after in jeopardy.
This argument seems fishy. He could have "licensed it" for $1 if that were the case. Instead, reading between the lines here, it sounds like he caused considerable hardship and non-trivial money to the creator of something that was essentially still in the "free beta" stage of development.
He can say whatever he wants to ease his conscience, if it walks like a troll...
He can say whatever he wants to ease his conscience, if it walks like a troll...
I'd have to hear the conditions of the license before I actually accused him of actually being a troll (p=30% in my book). I suspect the license actually was $1, 10% of revenue on a program understood to be freeware, 1 license to run the program should it become payed, 1 free beer should they meet, etc (fine in my book -- it's a defensive patent). But it could have been something that I would consider abusive. I just don't know.
I hesitantly accept the story as presented by these two business partners. But do I think it's "Un-fucking-believable" that someone would come to the opposite conclusion? Absolutely not. I do think it's puzzling that he doesn't realize that the ONLY thing we have to go on is his word and the word of somebody heavily incentivized to not badmouth him, and that this puts everyone else in a position of extreme uncertainty. That attitude smacks of "it's not trolling when I do it" and does slightly reduce the credibility of the claim. But only slightly -- I stand by my p=70% estimate that they're genuine and I can understand the frustration of having people assume the opposite.
I hesitantly accept the story as presented by these two business partners. But do I think it's "Un-fucking-believable" that someone would come to the opposite conclusion? Absolutely not. I do think it's puzzling that he doesn't realize that the ONLY thing we have to go on is his word and the word of somebody heavily incentivized to not badmouth him, and that this puts everyone else in a position of extreme uncertainty. That attitude smacks of "it's not trolling when I do it" and does slightly reduce the credibility of the claim. But only slightly -- I stand by my p=70% estimate that they're genuine and I can understand the frustration of having people assume the opposite.
Craig hold a patent (not unreasonable in this day and age); Ricci was made aware Craig held that patent; They amicably settled for a reasonable, and small, amount.
What's the problem here? Spend your efforts writing to your members of parliament or donating to anti-patent organisations.
What's the problem here? Spend your efforts writing to your members of parliament or donating to anti-patent organisations.
I'd really like to see a cite for this claim. I looked and could find zero reference to a patent holder's responsibility to enforce in order to maintain a patent's validity. AFAIK a patent holder is free to enforce their patent as they see fit, just as a copyright holder can. Otherwise there could be no such thing as a purely defensive patent, no?
Edit: Here we go[1]. So a patent holder can lose their ability to collect damages if they notify an infringer of their infringement but then fail to take action against that particular infringer within a certain period. There's no damage to the patent merely because of selective (or absence of) enforcement.
[1] http://www.lawabel.com/patent-damages-laches-and-equitable-e...
Edit: Here we go[1]. So a patent holder can lose their ability to collect damages if they notify an infringer of their infringement but then fail to take action against that particular infringer within a certain period. There's no damage to the patent merely because of selective (or absence of) enforcement.
[1] http://www.lawabel.com/patent-damages-laches-and-equitable-e...
I didn't meant that it would make legal action impossible, but that it might affect the outcome. E.g.:
- You collect a super small licensing fee from one entity and are attempting to extract a super large settlement from another.
- You (provably in court) know that Apple is infringing, but only decide to pursue action against Microsoft. This could affect, for example, you damage claims (i.e. your claims that MS owes you 'back dated' licensing fees).
- You collect a super small licensing fee from one entity and are attempting to extract a super large settlement from another.
- You (provably in court) know that Apple is infringing, but only decide to pursue action against Microsoft. This could affect, for example, you damage claims (i.e. your claims that MS owes you 'back dated' licensing fees).
Yeah, he found that out after posting that blog. https://twitter.com/chockenberry/status/474704755348881408
Maybe the lesson is that using patents as a deterrent from others using your idea is just too fraught with complications and costs. The best way to stay competitive is by relentlessly improving and effectively marketing your product.
From the guy who licensed the patent: https://twitter.com/pixelwinch/status/474716066896424960
Maybe the first line would be more helpful as a title :
> An anonymous individual is spreading accusations that I’m a patent troll.This seems like a decent call out.
It's a pastebin. Long texts on pastebin are the tabloids of the internet. Why would you even respond to this?
Long texts on pastebin are the only outlet for some things. It's like the bathroom wall of the internet.
Unfuckingbelievable indeed. He needs to fire his lawyer.